News

Six Gun Control Bills That Probably Won’t Pass

Protestors outside a state building holding a "don't tread on me" flag

Despite the Democrats push for extremely restrictive gun laws in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, not much has changed in the way of federal gun laws. If anything, we have seen the more relaxed gun law states pass legislations further loosening gun restrictions. However, the antis in Washington D.C. are relentless. They continue to introduce gun control and anti-gun legislations even as more Americans are expressing their support of gun rights.

The Shooter’s Log covers all the most important threats to our 2A rights, for example, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2015. However, some stories fall through the cracks, which I image these antis prefer it that way. If the NRA, pro-gun lobby and gun owners don’t hear about it, we can’t protest it, right?

Protestors outside a state building holding a "don't tread on me" flag
Gun owners and 2A supporters do a good job of making sure our voices are heard.

Gun owners, the firearms industry and 2A supporters united to form one very loud voice opposing the ATF’s recent proposal to broaden the meaning of “armor piercing,” which would have banned citizens from purchasing M855 .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO ammo. Pro Second Amendment forces did a good job of letting the ATF know that we will not stand for or accept laws that strip us of our rights. It didn’t take long for the ATF to retract its proposal. In fact, legislation has now been introduced to protect this commonly used AR-15 ammunition.

There are many times that news like the proposed ban on M855 ammo gets so much attention that gun owners may lose sight of what else is going on in Washington. As one of Cheaper Than Dirt!’s Facebook fans said about one recent bill, “…watch the other hand.”

Since the beginning of the year, there have been plenty of major anti-gun bills introduced. And even though, as my headline suggests, these purposed laws have a very slim chance of passing a Republican-controlled Congress, it is important to keep a close eye on what our lawmakers are doing.

Here are six gun control bills introduced in the House and Senate in chronological order from oldest to newest:

Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act

Rep. Rosa DeLauro
Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill giving people a tax credit for turning in “assault weapons.”

And the winner for most ridiculous title of a bill ever is Rep. Rosa DeLauro’s (D-CT) “Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for Our Streets Act.” Not a bill introduced for the first time, DeLauro’s recent attempt was read to the House Ways and Means Committee on April 13, 2015. The bill is a proposal to amend the Internal Revenue Code giving people a tax credit up to $2,000 if they hand in an “assault weapon.” The bill also defines “assault weapon” as all AK and AR variants, as well as the Hi-Point Carbine, M1 Carbine, Saiga, SKS with detachable magazine, FN FAL, HK 91, Ruger Mini-14 and more. The law would give lawful owners of such rifles a credit—based on the market value of the gun—if they surrender it to police. DeLauro says, “Assault weapons are not about hunting or even self-defense. There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, anyone needs a gun designed for the battlefield.” Govtrack.us gives this bill a zero percent chance of passing. Read the whole bill here.

Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2015

Gun show “loophole” laws are nothing new. Since 2001, various politicians have introduced one for seven consecutive sessions. Besides magazine capacity restrictions, gun show “loophole” laws have actually been the most successful in passing at the state level. Since 2012, 17 states now require background checks on individual sales at gun shows.

Introduced by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) on May 15, 2015, the latest version of this law expands the requirements of persons who may run a gun show, requires record keeping on gun shows, increases the punishment for violating the new rules, as well as requiring background checks on anyone buying a gun at a gun show. Read the entire bill here.

The Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2015

On May 21, 2015, for the second time, Rep. Maloney introduced a bill requiring gun owners carry liability insurance. The bill would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act prohibiting the sale of a gun unless the person buying it proved they had liability insurance covering the firearm—like we do when we buy new cars. Gun owners who fail to comply could face fines up to $10,000. Maloney said, “We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25% in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.” (Never mind that auto insurance is mandated through state law not federal and has been mandatory in some states since 1927. Or that data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reports that gun fatalities have declined.) She believes firearm liability coverage would “encourage cautious behavior and help save lives,” as well as be necessary for compensation if an accident were to happen. Read the bill here.

Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2015

Another bill introduced by Rep. Maloney is a revision of Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) failed attempt in February 2014 requiring handguns to be “personalized.” The latest version was introduced June 2, 2015, which requires all handguns to incorporate “smart gun” technology. The bills states, “…to require that all handguns manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States incorporate such technology.” Also in the bill is an allowance of federal funding to develop “smart gun” technology. Senator Markey said, “These bills will keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them and provide better information about what is causing gun violence and what can be done to prevent it.” Read the entire language of the bill here.

Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act of 2015

Focusing on controlling handguns specifically, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), along with three other politicians from Connecticut introduced the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act of 2015 on June 11, 2015. The purposed law would expand background checks, raise the legal age limit to own a firearm to 21, and give states a financial incentive to require a license to purchase a handgun. The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act is not a law enacting federal firearm licenses to purchase a handgun, however it essentially gives states a strong incentive to enact such laws so they will get federal money. These licenses to purchase a handgun would be granted from local police stations and require a background check, photographs and the submission of fingerprints.

Van Hollen’s website states, “The Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act authorizes a grant program at the Department of Justice to encourage states to establish permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns—including those sold at gun shows and sales between private parties. This grant would help offset the costs associated with the development, implementation and evaluation of these programs.” Van Hollen said, “Of the thousands of Americans murdered every single year by firearms, nearly 90% of those deaths occur with a handgun. With mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and friends dying every day because of guns, there is no question that gun violence is tearing at the fabric of our communities.” Read the entire bill here.

Airport Security Act of 2015

Airport sign that reads "Firearm Check In"
The Airport Security Act of 2015 bans the carrying of a loaded firearm at airports.

On June 15, 2015, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced The Airport Security Act of 2015. It is the third time Rep. Johnson has introduced the bill. It bans the carrying of loaded firearms anywhere at an airport. Currently, there is no federal law banning legal carry of loaded firearms in airport areas before TSA screening and security. Johnson says, “It defies logic that we would allow anyone other than law enforcement officials to carry a loaded gun within an airport. This bill is simple common sense.” Currently, gun owners who legally carry firearms are allowed to do so per their individual state’s laws in unsecured areas of airports, which may include baggage claim, ticketing and parking lots. Johnson’s office said the purposed law would declare all airports in the country “gun-free zones.” Read the full bill here.

There are still plenty of lawmakers and politicians on our side. As with the anti-gun proposals, there are pro-guns laws as well; examples include the Collectible Firearms Protection Act, Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act and Lawful Purpose and Self-Defense Act of 2015. It is just as important to write your Representatives in support of these pro-gun measures as it is to write and call in opposition to gun control laws. To find your representatives, visit the NRA-ILA’s website.

Do you think any of these bills have a chance of passing? Why or why not? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

In the wake of last week’s tragedy, I suspect we will see stricter gun laws introduced in the coming days. Subscribe to the Shooter’s Log to get updates delivered to your email inbox. To subscribe, enter your email address in the gray box to the right that says, “Connect Now!”

[suzanne]

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 (94)

  1. So-called “smart guns” sound great on paper but are killer in reality. A smart gun would contain an RFID chip that would respond to one worn or carried by the gun owner, it would only then allow the pin to strike and fire the weapon.

    This means that if you lose your REID cob or ring, etc, you’re gun is useless. It means your gun can be deactivated remotely via EMP, intentionally by Law Enforcement, criminal, or plain hacker. A nearby lightening strike could also produce enough EMP to cry your gun’s chip and render it inert. Static discharge could fry the chip. Walk across carpet, pick up your gun, zap, doorstop. There could be a remote deactivation switch built in so a correct RF signal turns your gun off. Such a gun requires a power source to operate the mechanism that locks/unlocks your firing pin or trigger group. A dead battery mama a dead gun.

    I would NEVER buy or trust a smart gun. It is a way to render any and all such weapons useless singularly or in mass. It isn’t presented that way but TPTB do have that idea in the back of their minds. There’s no way to shield such a weapon either. You cannot make an RFID system sage from static or EMP. To function it requires a signal transfer from outside to inside and THAT means it is EMP vulnerable. Finally, all microchips eventually fail. Your gun would simply die at some point due to oxidation or corrosion, etc.

    1. “Criminal LEOs will go nuts if airports are gun-free.”

      Excuse my confusion, but what the heck is a “criminal LEO”???

  2. Maloney said, “We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns. The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25% in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise.”

    To start with, why is it that whenever I bring up the comparison of the amount of deaths and injuries between cars (which a 16 year old is allowed to drive with no adult supervision) and firearms, I am ridiculed that there is no comparison… but it is OK for the anti-gun crowd to use the comparison. Then there is their cars are safer and guns are “only designed to kill” argument, but they can’t explain why more people are killed and injured every year with cars than with guns. I have never heard of a loaded firearm firing by itself without an external force being applied, but I have heard of running automobiles slipping into gear and starting off by themselves.

    Second, someone needs to enlighten Maloney the there IS NO REQUIREMENT to have insurance to own a car… At least there is no requirement anywhere that I know of. There IS a requirement in most states to have insurance if you are going to use that car on public roads, but not on private property. (Will this new insurance requirement for insurance allow me to use my firearm on public roads???) In some states (at least last time I checked) the government will allow a person to self insure their car. But whether they do or not, car insurance requirements are a STATE requirement, not a federal requirement. A requirement for firearm insurance should also, similarly, not be a federal requirement… Just ruled on by the SCOTUS as to the constitutionality of it if a case is appealed to that point.

    1. @ Don P:

      Excellent points. They’ve been made before, but your wording was exceptional which made it enjoyable to read from a different perspective.

      While reading I chuckled because it reminded me that I read somewhere there is a site put up by some guy that has a webcam focused on a loaded gun sitting in a room all by itself. The point was to poke fun at the anti-gun crowd as proof that no matter how long anyone kept tabs on his gun-cam, this weapon was simply never going to cause violence or kill anyone. His site even asks people to email him immediately in the event it ever moves or harms anyone.

      As for gun insurance, I actually carry some. It will cover my guns in the event of loss or theft (hehe).

      But for fun, whenever I encounter an anti-gunner yakking about mandating gun insurance, I always get them excited by agreeing. I get them so beaming with pride about their great idea until I tell them I expected it would be them that would carry their own insurance to cover themselves for self-induced anxiety disorders caused over their unnecessary fear of guns.

      Just my random thoughts are all. Good comments though.

  3. It strikes me as indicative that we’ve probably heard most of these voices as they screamed, whilst hugging trees, spotted owl lovers, and other inane, idiosyncratic ideas. As if these, or other simplistic efforts, are prevalent over human efforts. Sort of precludes their own lack of desire to protect themselves; or it gets “more Press” to shout, so they can coerce my right to avail myself of protections of if, for lack of better descriptions “of do-gooders such as this, eventually!

  4. Shoot, I could totally get behind that first and most ridiculously named bill if all it does is provide mandatory gun buy backs.

    I have an AR I’m not a huge fan of. It was my first AR and I didn’t really know what I wanted yet and would LOVE to sell it but can’t find anyone locally that’s interested for a fair price. It’d be great if she’d MAKE them buy it from me so I could go use that money for a new one.

    Then again, it shouldn’t be melted down, that’s a shame.

    And more importantly, it’s a travesty to have tax dollars used on a program whose antecedents only accomplishments have been to force police to buy murder weapons from suspects, prevent them from investigating and then force them to permanently destroy evidence for the suspect.

  5. Never say never. These anti 2A thugs will never stop. Stay diligent, write your lawmakers and support the NRA and other Pro 2A groups. It really does make the difference. Never give up never surrender!

  6. Hey I just now watched a very educational and informative documentary on CNBC: America’s Gun: The Rise Of The AR-15. It was made in 2013. My feeling after watching it is I really don’t think the government is going to be able to take this weapon from us. It’s just too popular. And with every restriction they try to impose, America will find other means to arm itself.

    In other words, with all the drama that surrounded the 2 huge massacres in Colorado and Connecticut 2 or 3 years ago, and how we evolved since then, I just don’t see anything overwhelming happening to take our guns from us at this point in time.

    The other thing I got out of the show is that I may have made a mistake to sell my AR-15 and rally around my AR-10 and AK’s. The AR-15 is much more controllable and still devastating (as shown GRAPHICALLY on the TV show). I’ll never give up my AK’s, but I may sell my AR-10 and go back to AR-15.

    1. They are already taking away ‘assault weapons’ in NY. The safe act says you can’t pass these guns on to your heirs. Granted, you can change the stock on an AR to make it compliant, but they will eventually change the wording of the law to outlaw those as well. For those in other states, stay vigilant, you never know when the law will suddenly change on you like it did here.

  7. Let’s remember ladies and gentlemen that everyone follows the laws. No one purchases a gun or rifle anywhere other that an authorized gun dealer. Laws will limit all the shootings that have been going on.

    If anyone believes this I have some ocean front property in Arizona that I have for sale.

    I recently purchased a gun not too long ago to protect my family. The world is a scary place and nothing is more scary than a person wanting or willing to kill someone for some reason that makes sense to that person; whether it is for goids, beliefs, or or for fun.

  8. Even in 1920s and 30’s when we had gangsters in feds allover the country using Tommy guns B.A.R’S the GOVERNMENT knew the definition of (Arms) and the meaning of (SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED).
    Now I ask why is are they pushing gun control and bans.
    When in the last 80 years gun violence is down.
    All I can come up with is unarmed sheep are easier to control than proud armed Americans!

  9. These probably don’t have a chance of passing –just like Obama’s fast-track trade authority didn’t have a chance of passing; just like homosexual marriage didn’t stand a chance of being upheld in court against the will of the people; just like AHCA didn’t stand a chance of being upheld by the Court; just like the wording of the ACHA subsidies would be struck down because of the wording of the law; just like Obama’s illegal executive orders would be defunded; just like — aw, f***, what’s the use? Toomey’s already plotting with Manchin on how to screw us again! They’ll be supported by the cowards that pass for Republican “leadership,” and their allies in the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Insider who put their profits ahead of our freedoms. The point is that as long as we’re free, we can’t be controlled, and that’s just not acceptable to Democrats or Republicans. MOLON LABE!

    1. Face it, Brother.

      We’re pretty much the last free generation in America. And most likely, we’ll be vilified for supporting the Constitution.

  10. Voting should be the right way. Now how did Obama get elected NOT by popular vote but by (electoral) votes.
    No one was Deep enough pockets to majority of the citizens. But a few dozen is all it takes for electoral.
    I think it’s time to show Washington we will not lay down and take Them using the constitution for their toilet paper.
    Obama had already done enough his first six months in office to have been impeached, and buy the end of his first term to have been convicted of TREASON & ESPIONAGE.
    We have laws that apply the same for all even to government officials.
    If was any citizen that had done the things that Obama and his administration has we would have been imprisoned if not shot!

  11. VTheg is thepocke way. Now how did Obama get elected NOT by popular vote but by (electoral) votes.
    No one was Deep enough pockets to majority of the citizens. But a few dozen is all it takes for electoral.
    I think it’s time to show Washington we will not lay down and take Them using the constitution for their toilet paper.
    Obama had already done enough his first six months in office to have been impeached, and buy the end of his first term to have been convicted of TREASON & ESPIONAGE.
    We have laws that apply the same for all even to government officials.
    If was any citizen that had done the things that Obama and his administration has we would have been imprisoned if not shot!

  12. I spent 23 years in the Marines, and 18 years as a LEO. I own several rifles, an M4 and numerous pistols. I’m not what anyone would classify as a “Gun Nut”. I simply like firearms, I enjoy shooting on ranges, and although I hunted a lot growing up in Arkansas I don’t know since I can afford to buy my meat. I even support background checks for gun shows (since I’ve been to several and seen the types that come out of places like New York and Chicago to get their toys). But I am absolutely sick and tired of the New York Democrazies trying to legislate my constitutional rights away. It will eventually come to the point that the idiots being elected to federal government will need to be reminded that we are given that right so as to protect ourselves from the very tyrants that they have become!

  13. I think it’s very possible. If repuks weren’t with obummer, they would be voting against him! But, interestingly, he seems to be getting a lot of things his way! But, he doesn’t need congress, he can sinply wave his magic pen. Who’s to stop him? We haven’t seen anyone in washington stop anyone from anything! Obummer will control guns by decree, and the minions under him will do whatever they are told. We are told that he has more than a dozen presidential decrees to control guns coming, but we aren’t being told what they all are. You can bet many will follow them! Since the feds controll background checks, you can bet now’s the time to get them before it’s next to impossible! I think there’s a reason the feds stocked up. When they are done, the gun and ammo community will hate them, and the feds themselves will be cut off!

  14. It’s possible. Remember the idiots voted for prohibition. Also they elected Obama twice.
    Sh!@ happens!

    1. All of these bills have a chance of passing because there are many who think criminals will obey the law. As there is no shortage of these idiots and congressmen and senators needing face time on liberal news outlets, every one has a chance.
      That’s why it is most important to be proactive as these issues emerge.

  15. Van Hallons article did not state weather the guns were leagle or stolen. That’s the same as the news media they never say leagle or stolen guns.

  16. There is already a gun law. It’s call the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution
    of the United States. All other laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It’s really not that difficult.

  17. when talking with friends and people at gunshows and the range you are preaching to the choir. im a retired gunsmith with liberal leanings. if you want to defeat these stupid proposed laws you really need to tone down the name calling and insults as this does nothing to help our cause. try broadening your circle of friends to include liberals. you will find that if you talk with each other in a civil manner that you have much more in common than you think. the group i shoot with are all republicans but me and while we have some spirited conversations we agree more times than not.we may approach a problem from a different angle, but the solution is often the same. too bad congress has decided on both sides it is better to make hateful and dubious statements lambasting each other instead of sitting down together and solving the problems of the nation. so go ahead and flame your liberal neighbor and see how quick you change his mind!

    1. You act as though the name calling is all one sided. I find that if I just disagree with some of the diehard liberals, they automatically start calling me a “Faux News watching ammosexual mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging racist homophobic bible-thumping tea bagger” despite the fact that I’m actually a Libertarian.

      Just because you disagree with somebody doesn’t mean that they’re dumber than you. Some people just get way too emotional.

    2. you are right,the last sentence in my response was one sided and aimed strictly at conservatives. my bad and sorry to give the impression that only the right sinks to the lower levels and name calling. i choose not to lower myself and yell bumper sticker slogans at people that disagree with me. when it becomes a personal attack with name calling,insults and threats of physical violence i tend to laugh and walk away.
      again sorry about that,i really didnt mean to lump all conservatives in to one group. the group i shoot with are all republican and we talk laugh and joke around. we do not attack each others beliefs or try and belittle each other. they are good people and i would trust them with my life. at times we do have to just agree to disagree.

    3. No reason to be sorry at all! I agree 100%. Name calling just shows lack of maturity or intelligence. If you want to drive a point home, use it with intelligent facts, leave the name calling at home, that just turns people off.

      Name calling is reserved for fun between friends!

    4. Most of that name calling in Congress is theatrics. Most of those politicians are long-time friends with their colleagues across the aisle. Ironically, many Democrats enjoy recreational gun activities as well as their Republican counterparts.

      What makes my blood boil is the hipocracy. Diane Feinstein, is at the top of the list. She is relentlessly trying to disarm California, yet she has a conceiled weapons permit. It takes an act of God & Congress to get one of those in California.

  18. I am working on my degree and wanted to ask a couple of questions about gun ownership. I live in Florida and have a concealed carry permit, I own a Glock G27 subcompact 40 cal. for personal and family safety.

    I would like some educated responses (just don’t want reasons like Obama is a socialist or democrats are working for Hitler). I need to have useful info to present in my argument for the need to protect our right to bear arms. My questions are:
    1. Why is closing the loopholes at gun shows not a good idea?
    2. Why is having to have a background check to purchase any gun such a bad idea?
    3. What can be done to prevent people with mental illness from obtaining a gun without background checks?
    4. I realize it’s the few that spoil it for the responsible gun owners but what is a plan to minimize guns from getting into the wrong hands without restricting everyone?
    Thanks for your answers and I look forward to some useful input for my argument.

    1. i too live in florida, im afraid most of your responses will be the old slippery slope argument. people have been frightend by the nra that all gun control is evil and the ultimate goal is total disarmament. i dropped out of the nra when they changed from a safety training advocate to we hate all things liberal and wont discuss the topics you put forward.
      1. cant really be done unless you make all person to person sales illegal without a background check.you could always meet at the show and make the sale/purchase later at another location. accomplish nothing
      2.it is not a bad idea,i dont like the waiting periods and charges tacked on to them. the biggest drawback is the medical confidential laws preventing releasing mental health problems. this and the failure to prosecute that violate the laws as they now stand equals whats the point? if you have concealed carry permit, you have already been vetted and should not need to pay every time you buy a weapon.
      3.that is the million dollar question!
      4. stronger prosecution of felons with guns or trying to obtain guns. better mental health healthcare for the mentally ill. make sure released patients return to their doctor at regular intervals to make sure they are staying on their meds. people with mental illness that drs think may have a desire to hurt themselves or others must turn this info over to the people doing back ground checks and release drs from any liability for releasing said information. if a dr later decides a patient is stable enough to own firearms in the future, the patient must pass a review of a certified group of expert drs that ok the change of status.
      3&4 will be argued over for many years as these shootings continue to happen. sadly there is no way to see into the human heart mind or soul and these people will continue to prey on the people that are the least able to defend themselves.

    2. Thanks for your comments. I left the NRA for the same reasons. I cannot figure out why we as a nation cannot come together and make some sensible guns laws.

      In regards to question #1, is banning person to person sales such a bad thing? Wouldn’t it make more sense to sell your gun to a FFL and then let them deal with it? Maybe charge a transfer fee and background check?

      In regards to question #2, never thought about the medical confidentiality rules. Great point and thanks!

      Thanks again, I really appreciate your help.

    3. So, clearly you already had your mind made up and this entire exercise has nothing to do with answering questions from antis, since you agree with them.

    4. Based on the way you have slanted your questions, it’s evident you are looking for very specific replies to your perspective. Recognizing that, here are some thoughts for you. BTW, what does this have to do with your college studies?

      1. What Gun Show Loophole are you referring to? All guns sold by FFL dealers at gun shows require a background check just like any sale from a dealer. Transfers between individuals at a gun show are no different from transfers between individuals anywhere else whether they are between friends, neighbors, family members, a yard sale, or the bulletin board. Like a transfer of personal property such as a car, canoe, chain saw or a bowling ball, people have the right to sell or give away their personal property. hence, the Gun Show Loophole issue is a straw man created by someone who was either ignorant of how the world works or who deliberately setting up an issue they could then use to tighten gun control to forbid individuals from transferring their own personal property.

      2. Background checks aren’t a problem and the vast majority of legal gun sales are subject to them because they go through dealers. The few transfers between law abiding individuals that are done privately could be made subject to a background check using the same mechanism as is used for transfers of guns sold on line, that is, go to a dealer, pay a transfer fee, and have him run the check. Exemptions should be made for persons who hold a concealed carry permit since they already have a background check. The problem is that it will do absolutely nothing to prevent criminals and crazies from buying guns on the street. What it would do is complicate life and raise costs for honest citizens, and lead to situations such as occurred in Buffalo, NY where a father died, and the police showed up at his grieving family’s home to seize his guns because they could not be legally transferred to his family.

      3. Nothing. Crazy people, like criminals, will always be able to get guns on the street from criminals. The better solution is better diagnosis and treatment of people with mental illness. Society needs to stop dehumanizing people through callous and uncaring laws and regulations, over crowded schools, and the insanity of making everyone a number.

      4. Stop releasing criminals. Stop destroying the family. Enforce the tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books and quit giving criminals a free ride back to the street so they can commit more crimes.

      I hope these have been helpful. The antis actually have a booklet called they provide their followers with on how to argue against gun ownership. Here is a quote from it: “The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” said the 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, OMB, and KNP Communications.

    5. To begin with I resent your second post. I do not agree with the anti’s but unlike most of America I seek to understand both sides. The left wants guns banned from the earth and the right wants to offer every baby born a gun at birth. It is this extreme view of BOTH sides that prevents a logical discussion on how to proceed. Indeed I am looking for specific answers. I am arguing the pro gun side in an ethics class and don’t want to just point to the second amendment. My intention is to persuade those who have a radical view (or as you stated anti’s) with a detailed argument.

      I have learned some very useful information. Perhaps the biggest lesson I have learned, the transfer of a firearm is just property and therefore requires nothing more than selling a car. Many people do not equate a gun as private property.

      Although I am more liberal than conservative, I was raised to hunt, I own several guns and am progun. Next time don’t follow the rhetoric we have on BOTH sides and box people into your definition of a liberal.

    6. TJ, my apologies if I came across wrong and didn’t intend to insult you.

      I understand there are two sides, but I have watched the anti’s take a mile every time we compromised for decades. Many years ago we said that firearm registration would lead to confiscation, and people told us were being extreme. But in the past two years, we have seen exactly that in New York, Connecticut and other places.

      I am just tired of trying to reason with the Liberals who have no interest in reason, they want everything to be exactly as they want, and if you disagree you are branded as everything from a deranged criminal to a racist. So good luck reasoning with them with facts, because they do not care about facts.

      As their Anti gun talking points booklet says . . “The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” said the 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, OMB, and KNP Communications.

      I am personally neither a liberal nor a Conservative. Liberals would burn me at the stake because I believe in the rights of the individual to protect themselves and believe in God, and Conservatives would be out in front of my house with torches and pitchforks because I agree with the SCOTUS that the Constitution guarantees gays right to marry.

      In short, the government has no right whatsoever to tell anyone what they can or can not do as long as they are not harming others. Me owning guns and carrying one does not harm a single person, and I have used guns in my life to protect others. Nor does two men or two women marrying harm anyone. So the government can just back out of my life and let me live in the freedom my ancestors have fought to protect since the French and Indian war.

    7. #1 There is no “gun show loophole” it’s a myth created by lying anti-gunners.Buy from any dealer there and you will go through a background check.Private sales happen between individuals,but those aren’t regulated by federal law and nor should they be.

      #2 No one is saying it’s a bad idea,as THE LAW STANDS NOW everyone must complete a background check to purchase a firearm.To get a CCP you must also complete a background check and most states allow you to bypass NICS at purchase since the CCP check is much more through.

      #3 See #2 if you have been adjudicated as having a mental illness you won’t pass the background check.

      #4 The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by the criminal element.NO law yet devised has stopped criminals from ignoring it.Are we supposed to think everyone is crazy until proven otherwise just because one person flips out and kills some people?No one in this debate has yet told us what caliber gun was used by Andrew Lubitz when he flew the plane load of people in his care into a mountain killing 150 souls instantly.Criminals and crazy people will find a way,the only way to minimize the destruction is by allowing free men and women to defend themselves and their neighbors.

    8. The wording of the second amendment “The right of the “PEOPLE” to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed”!!!

      The best personal defense aid is equitable or superior to whatever may be used against me, you, or us!!!!!. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the wealthy didn’t tyrannize and take advantage of the poor to the point of war or revolution in which you-know-who loses and remains or becomes enslaved.
      The question is, “When the government officials rely on corporations for their career’s stability, and that when these corporations decide they’re capable and ready to enslave the masses [including those government officials], will you/me/we have the personal defense aids necessary to defend our freedom in this modern technological age, or will you/me/we be stuck with rusty armor?”

      We go back to the simple question of “What part of “shall not be infringed” do they (the establishment) not understand”. Any firearms restriction law written since 1791 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

      This includes background checks we are not criminals we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms!!

    9. First, Semper Fi, Marine and thanks for your service! Second, you’re way off base in your comment regarding the origin of the Second Amendment. I suggest a bit of study to learn the ACTUAL history of that amendment. Here’s a hint: It had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with rich v. poor!

      As an objective observation, your post seems to contain several class warfare comments that seem similar to those used by socialists and communists to support conflict between “haves” and “have-nots”. Do you REALLY support communism or class warfare? Or did you just make an unfortunate choice of words? Or did I misunderstand?

    10. I hate to answer questions with questions, but something for you to think about…….
      When I was young, guns were available everywhere without restriction. We could buy them through the mail at Sears, in every hardware and department store, etc. We could carry them on planes or in our cars to school. No permits or licenses required. Yet, for some reason, people were not committing mass killings. We all got in fights, and got mad as hell, but never gave a thought to picking up a gun in order to settle things with our wife or the bully in the next block. People were bullied in school, at work, in the military, and in their own family, but for some reason they didn’t shoot up schools full of innocent children. So what has changed? Back in those days we were taught discipline, patriotism, self control, we said prayers in school, went to church, and most of us had fathers who worked and mothers who were home with their kids. Our hero was always on the right side of the law and evil was not glorified. Today our leaders and media mock religion and patriotism. If a male teacher grabs an out of control male student the teacher is arrested not the brat. We can now immerse ourselves in total violence 24/7 via music, movies, video games, etc Take a look at Netflix and take note of how many movie titles show Hollywood’s most popular theme…………….that every problem is resolved with violence and/or a gun.
      Some of our less informed politicians believe that the problem is modern guns when, in fact, the problem is modern culture. .

    11. Spot on! It’s not guns that are creating the problem, and removing all the guns from society wouldn’t solve it. The problem is that people have lost their moral compass through the degradation of the family and honorable principles of living.

    12. Wow. Succinct and, from my memory of the 1950s – today, totally accurate. Only one thing is missing. We no longer teach consequences. When I was a child, when I misbehaved, there were consequences. I was made to take responsibility for my actions. That is no longer taught to our children. I believe that is a vital part of the equation. Other than that, I agree totally.

    13. From my point of view the main reason is, according to the FBI, because for the individual background checks to work, we would have to register ALL guns. I know that this brings up the ‘slippery slope’ argument, but history shows us that it is true. Do a little research and find out what happens when governments first register guns. The next step is to confiscate guns. Criminals will not register guns,,,they are criminals and the SCOTUS says that they do not have to comply because that would be against the Constitution. (Self incrimination) Last but certainly not least. The last four words in the 2nd Amendment are “Shall not be infringed”.

    14. Let’s take your questions one at a time.

      1. Why is closing the loopholes at gun shows not a good idea?

      First, there is no “loophole” to close. This is a red herring argument made by “the usual suspects” on the anti-gun side of the discussion. The most commonly presented “loophole” is the lack of “background check” requirement for gun show purchases. This is false on its’ face. ALL FFL sales are required by federal law to include a “background check”. In order to close this “loophole”, one must first make illegal the transfer of private property through a person-to-person sale at any time at any place. A firearm is, after all, simply private property. If you are willing to take that step, as several states have, then any property the government wants to regulate can be regulated in the same way. Slippery slope? You decide.

      2. Why is having to have a background check to purchase any gun such a bad idea?

      There are so many reasons this is a bad idea I really don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that the federal database is incomplete, at best. Not all data supposedly contained in the database is actually present. For example, not all states submit the requested mental health information due to privacy concerns (and justifiably, in my opinion as a RN). Proposed purchases that do not “clear” the federal check immediately must/may be completed later if the check either clears later or does not clear within a time mandated by the “Brady law”. I think that is 3 days. However, a simple review of recent mass shooters’ means of acquiring their arms will demonstrate the futility of this federally mandated system. It is simply an impediment to the law-abiding citizen wishing to purchase a firearm.

      3. What can be done to prevent people with mental illness from obtaining a gun without background checks?

      Given the repeated failures of the current system, I would suggest we rethink the matter rather than continue a demonstrably failed system. I do not have a simple or concrete answer to this question. However, I would ask “how were such people denied access to firearms BEFORE the “Brady law” and its mandated “background checks”?

      4. I realize it’s the few that spoil it for the responsible gun owners but what is a plan to minimize guns from getting into the wrong hands without restricting everyone?

      Before any answer can be offered to this question, at least one definition must be agreed upon. Define “wrong hands”. Then we can discuss this question intelligently.

    15. First, thank you for answering my questions.
      #1- Great point on private property!
      #2- If the argument is the data is not accurate, wouldn’t the logical answer be to fix the system instead of abolishing it? Unfortunately, the majority of the laws we have are because of the few that ruin it for the good. I don’t drink and drive, yet there has to be laws enacted to prevent it from happening.
      #3- I think the answer is the systematic shutdown of mental institutions and the transfer of people with mental illness to prisons.
      #4.- Wrong hands- terrorists, criminals, drug dealers, etc…

      I understand there is no way of preventing every gun from falling into the wrong hands but how can we curb it? Thanks again for answering each question.

    16. TJ, thanks for asking the questions in a rational manner. As you know, this subject can bring instant emotional acceleration from zero to 250 mph in one heartbeat.

      From my perspective, there are several reasons why Q’s 1 and 2 are bad ideas:

      As a preamble, there is no “loophole” for buying a gun at a gun show – the laws for purchase at gun shows are the same as the laws for purchase outside of gun shows. That is, firearms purchased through FFL dealers must have a NICS check, those outside of FFLs need no NICS check. The intent of many of the proposed laws is to require a NICS check any time a firearm is transferred, not simply sold. If you read the text of some of the proposed laws, the term transfer means giving a firearm to a relative as a gift (son, daughter, father, in-law, whatever). There are some laws that make exclusion for transfers between teachers and students, owners and gunsmiths for repair or upgrade, loaners for hunting season, etc, but this is NOT universally found.

      1. However, in the first of all, these laws would fly in the face of the Second Amendment, as others here have mentioned. Can you imagine the reactions of the liberal side if someone should suggest a permit on background check being needed before exercising a right defined under one of the other amendments? For instance, speech, or running a newspaper, or a woman voting. For whatever “militia” might mean in the SA, it seems clear the Founding Fathers saw that, in order for there to be a well-regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms needed to be unencumbered AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

      2. Secondly, for those people continually asking for “common sense” gun laws, the background checks are not the end of the push for laws. Accepting these requirements would not produce “peace” with folks wanting these laws any more than granting land to Hamas and Hezbollah would produce peace with them. The desired “end” to the requests would come when there are no more firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. Do a Google search on “Feinstein turn them all in mr and mrs America”, for instance, and see what you get.

      The answer to Q 3 seems to be able to get info on people who have been given psychotropic drugs onto the NICS database. This would not solve all mental health questions, but it would go a looooong way. Dr. Ignatius Piazza has a lot to say on that matter. Google his comments to check them out. However, the health privacy laws would need tweaking before that could happen, and the chances of that happening are between slim and none-whatsoever.

      As to Q 4, I think a program among gun owners to promote sensible firearm storage might go a ways. I know there are firearm owners who do not keep their arms in safe storage, other than those in immediate use, on their bodies, etc. I do NOT subscribe to the idea that firearms need to be keep disassembles, unloaded, ammo separate, etc, etc, but I do think firearms not being used right now for practice or concealed carry, etc, should be secured in some sort of locked safe or cabinet (preferably with ammo, magazines, etc, right there with the weapons. Despite the negative comments by some folks here, I think the NRA and NAGR are good places for such education movements to start.

      I started with the NRA many years ago, myself. I am now 72, and have seen a lot of political change in my lifetime regarding firearms in public hands. The NRA may very well have started as a “gun safety” organization – I started in the Junior Division more years ago than I care to admit to. But any shift on the part of NRA to the political side was brought to them by Washington DC, state, and local legislators working to control “guns” (sic – “guns”, per the military, are crew served weapons, and most civilian “guns” are not crew served devices). This goes back as far as the GCA of ’68 where hammer block safeties, etc, were all the rage. Then there was the era of the “sporting use” argument, that lost temporarily during Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Then, there arose a time when Congress contemplated a black-out period for political comments, when organizations such as NRA or NAGR could not make public comments on issues, and tie politicians’ names to bills in consideration, even when those pols were running for President. There have been others, but those are two examples of why the NRA saw the need to enter the political field. NRA’s place in political realms for statements’ sake, and for information distribution, have been absolutely necessary for truth to be disseminated in a timely manner, on more than one occasion.

      Best wishes to you in your search for truth, and in attaining whatever degree you are seeking. I take you at your word that you are a Glock owner and FL CCW permit carrier. I hope not to be disappointed by this. As we used to say in Russia, “Doveryay no proveryay”” – Trust but verify.

  19. The same LOONS from Cali,Jersey,n.y,Maryland and some new England talking about gun control.Maybe they are the ones we could depending to protect us from an ISIS attack that will happen here sooner or later.That is why the next presidential election is so important.It’s time to take our beloved homeland back from these jackasses.

  20. This isn’t about gun control but people control it was once said (This yearwill go down in history. For the first time, a civalized nation has full gun registration. Our streets are safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.–(Adolf Hitler. 1935) wake up people its not guns but people. Fight and fight NOW!!!

    1. quisquis autem occiderit, non a facie gladii: ferrum in manu interficientis est .” […a sword never kills anybody; it’s a tool in the killer’s hand.]

  21. I see a lot of comments for “organizing” and getting out to vote. Fortunately, we already have an organization for just that. Those are the NRA and NAGR (Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights). Join these and get involved by writing or calling your rep’s at the Federal level as well as State level. If you’re not a joiner, Donate. These efforts cost money and both organizations could put it to good use.
    Thanks

  22. The only one I see that has potential is the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act. This does not actually impose a restriction on handguns it just gives the states some financial incentive to in act the required law. Many all ready have similar laws.

    This would be politically less painfully for some Congressional reps. especially in so called “purple states”.

    1. Here in Illinois we already have this law. To purchase any firearm you need a F.O.I.D. card, Firearms Owner IDentification card. With a 24 hour hold on long guns and a 72 hour wait on handguns. Me, I see nothing wrong with this.

    2. I do it’s an INFRINGEMENT on our CONSTITUTIONAL rights. You have been drinking too much one dimensional lieberal Kool-Aid believing that the actual intent of this legislation is focused on keeping guns out of the criminal’s hand lieberal.

      Any multi dimensional (realistic) individual knows that the criminal will acquire firearms no matter what and NONE get them through “legitimate sales”. The very fact they are CRIMINALS should be a tip off.

      The purpose behind this legislation is to DISARM the American People thus negating OUR Constitutional rights AND turning us into slaves.

      The Armed people are free citizens the unarmed people are slaves!!

    3. Regarding the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act proposal, I have one question. Why does the government need to know whether I choose to purchase a piece of personal property, and what type? As far as I can see, this will have zero effect on criminal activity of any type. It’s just another citizen control mechanism and tax (the “fee” for the “license”). The worst case would be use of the information as a handgun registry for later confiscation of those arms and the basis for a warrant (or a warrantless search) for other arms not related to the “handgun license”.

    4. Isn’t that just precious? If Marshall Law is ever imposed in Illinois,just as it was in New Orleans after Katrina, all of the FOID holders will be rounded up an stripped of the means to defend against non FOID holders. I respectfully hope YOU are the first on their list!

    5. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

      It amazes me how people see nothing wrong with something that inevitably will be used against them. The nonsense of universal background checks will inevitably lead to registration. Registration will inevitably lead to confiscation.

      Ask the gun owners of New York and Connecticut. And neither of them will do anything to reduce crime or violence. In fact, they will lead to more crime and violence against unarmed victims.

  23. Here in New Jersey we already have a law the same as the Handgun Purchaser Licensing Act plus a 30 day wait between hand gun purchases. This draconian law resulted in the recent murder of Carol Browne.

  24. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

  25. I hate to say it, but everyone knows where this will end up. Sooner or later, they will brow beat enough people, just like the gay agenda, where guns will be outlawed.

    All this crap is due to liberal mental disorders.

    We all need to organize and take care of this now!

    A purge of misfits and traitors is needed.

    1. The VOTE is the only way to beat these Liberal IDIOTS. Many of the people I talk to at Gun Shows or shooting eventssure talk alot but still don’t VOTE. PUT UP or SHUT UP so you won’t loose your RIGHTS.

    2. Well said.

      I don’t understand why so many gun owners stand around and complain and then do nothing about the problems. Yeah, we won’t win every battle, but we win enough to keep the barbarians at bay, and if we don’t vote and take action we won’t win ANY of the battles.

      Molon Labe bumper stickers and posting in blogs that it is our right to bear arms won’t stop them from passing stupid and illegal laws. Only activism will do that.

    3. Have you not paid attention to all the lawsuits about voting machine hacks and registrars cheating voters out of their votes in the last 4 POTUS elections? You still believe you have an effective vote? I don’t!

      I still vote, in hopes of seeing a change – but I do believe we may have to move on from the ballot box to the next box in the line.

    4. A purge of misfits? Ok, you Hitler wannabe. Of course you go and sh!@ on gay people because of your own screwed up insecurities.

    5. Just out of curiosity, how did you make the leap to “purge of misfits” = “crapp[ing] on gays”?

      If the comment read “purge of deviants” or the like, your reasoning would be more clear. As it is, your reasoning appears a bit muddled.

  26. All military members, police officers, firemen and others had to be sworn in by what is called an Oath, they raised their right hand and swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC………so help me God. This Oath shall never leave our hearts or souls. Last time I checked the 2nd Amendment is part of our Constitution……..Live Free or Die, YOU make the choice………..we live amongst traitors and vilians who want us to break our Oath. NOT ME…

    1. Amen, Brother.

      I took that oath more than once, and no one ever released me from, nor could they. An oath like this is a lifetime thing, and unless you betray it, it never ends.

      I have sworn to defend it as a soldier and a LEO, I have sacrificed to defend it, and I have bled to defend it. I swore this oath to God and the American people, and neither of them has ever released me from it.

    2. I think we all need remember why the 2nd Amendment was added to the constitution in the first place.
      It was for our protection but not for personal protection but to protect the citizen from the GOVERNMENT.
      Prior to the revolutionary war the sit out to collect all firearms to Force the colonies into submission.
      Our forefathers put in place the 2nd Amendment so the citizens could have weapons EQUAL to the forces that might try to take them.
      NOW WE NEED TO WAKE UP.
      Why would a government want their citizens helpless.
      ??????????

    3. You make some good points. The day of the Lexington Green contact between British regulars and Minutemen, the British were on their way to confiscate stores of powder and arms in Concord. Boston was under virtual siege by the British in an attempt to confiscate all privately owned arms, powder and other munitions.

      Having recently won a bloody revolution against the most powerful army in the world, our founders were not about to forget the lessons learned about citizens being abused by a tyrannical government. Since the early 20th century, our national government has sought ever increasing control over the citizenry. We have allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing “it’s for your own good”. For example, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was publicized as an effort to eliminate the most dangerous firearms from the gangs then ravaging the country. Sound familiar? Between 1934 and 1986, how many crimes were committed using fully automatic arms? So few and so infrequently as to be insignificant. Yet, the Congress thought it necessary to include the Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986) which banned the manufacture of fully automatic arms after enactment of the FOPA.

      So, for nearly 30 years, no US citizen or permanent resident has had the legal ability to purchase a new “machine gun”. One could argue that, lacking access to current manufacture automatic arms, the citizens are necessarily subordinate to the national government in terms of access to arms of military utility. And, while perfectly acceptable during colonial times, no person or “militia” is able to legally purchase a cannon or artillery piece because they are deemed to be “destructive devices” under the NFA. So, in fact, we the people are not “equal to the forces that might try to take them [privately owned firearms]”. Nor have we been for nearly 80 years.

      With increasing interest by the UN in our internal affairs, it may be time to reverse these restrictions or possibly face the loss of national sovereignty to a literal world government in the form of the anti-freedom quasi-communist UN.

    4. The key word here is “politician.” To put a twist on an old joke . . .

      Two guys were walking through a cemetery and reading the headstones. The first guy read one that said “Here lies a politician and an honest man.”

      The second looked at his friend and asked, “What’d they do, bury two people in the same grave?”

  27. To the author: thank you for stating the truth in identifying these enemies of freedom not as generic “politicians”, but as actual “democrats”. Gun writers too often try to appease gun-owning democrat readers by hiding the fact.

  28. Hey folks, that tax credit was stated to be for “UP TO $2000 based on the market value of the gun”. It doesn’t mean you would get $2000 for every assault rifle turned in.

    1. there’s no amount of money that would persuade me to turn in anything, not even an used cleaning patch…

  29. The real nutty thing about this is how do they determine someone is the “lawful owner.” Some scum bag could steal a bunch of guns, and plenty would, that have a MSRP of under $300, and then turn them in for a tax credit of $2000.

    Do these morons not realize that they are actually helping criminals? But in reality, all gun control laws help criminals.

    1. Morons is right. The ATF does buy-backs and overpay so much that people go to Bass Pro Shops or Cabellas, buy guns and then sell them to the ATF for a profit! In Cleveland at a toys for guns or something stupid like that, a gun collectors club set up a table outside and bought some guns from people who didn’t know what they had, some of which were very rare or highly collectible.

    2. I do not doubt it.

      Generally, the kind of people who would sell guns in a program like this are not really gun fans, collectors, or dedicated owners. If I absolutely had no choice but to sell any of my guns, it would be on Gun Broker or through a dealer. I’d rather run over my guns with a bulldozer than ever sell them to a program like this, no matter how much I needed the money.

    3. Criminals would’t take advantage of the tax credit, because in order to get the credit first you need to work, have taxes withheld and second, you need to file a tax return. I don’t think there are too many criminals that actually work, pay taxes and file a return. That why they’re criminal.

  30. I saw the “Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill giving people a tax credit for turning in assault weapons.” caption, and then I looked at her photo, and I started cracking up. That is hilarious. Then I peeked at the article and saw she’s from Connecticut, and realized this is priceless, like the caption and the woman totally fit the state.

    Then I saw that my Hi-Point 9mm Carbine with 10 round mag is part of the bill, and that just adds to the insanity of this bill she’s trying to pass.

    I’m just trying to find some humor here since the main title says they probably won’t pass anyway.

    1. As funny as the photo of this person is – or for example, what a joke it is for the liberal elitists in Hollywood or a rap artist (ha!) to make statements against firearm ownership – people do listen – stupid people, people without minds of their own, lemmings. So, don’t ever underestimate the power of these people – no matter what a joke they are. Thing is – if just the gun owners (which they say is in the 80 million range in the U.S.) voted – this would not be a deal. Obama only won by 6 1/2 million popular votes last time – and only about 125 million in this country voted. We could beat them hand down even with the voter fraud that goes on.

  31. The really twisted thing about all of these proposed laws is that none of them would do anything to reduce crime or keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and certainly, a law making anywhere a gun free zone is beyond ludicrous.

    But just because we’re smart enough to realize these things, don’t for a second think that Liberals are. They live in what Erwin Rommel called “Cloud Cuckoo Land” where nothing is real and they think the moon is made of green cheese.

    So pay attention and follow the NRA, NAGR, and GOA to know when to take action to warn politicians we will hit them where it hurts . . in reelection if they even think of supporting anything this stupid.

  32. I have a Hi-point 995 that I would let them have for a $2000 tax credit. I would even let them have my Adams Arms ar15, since it only cost me $600. I’m already thinking of the guns I could buy with the money.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

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.