# Anti-gun vote



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Tomorrow is the vote. Contact our reps and voice your opinion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just heard the Senate rejected it. I also heard Heidi didn't vote for it. Wow freedom survived the attack.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Here is their web page
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legisl ... /votes.htm

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00098
both voted for this.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00097
heide voted yes


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I just heard the Senate rejected it. I also heard Heidi didn't vote for it. Wow freedom survived the attack.


Its sad when freedom winning is a shocker.....


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Why was anyone surprised that Heidi and Hoeven both voted no? Their constituency is opposed to gun controls of any kind and they voted as advised by their constituents. Now that they voted down using exactly the same background checks at gun shows, they might as well keep going and scrap any background checks for anyone. That would be the logical next step.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport, hint hint, Heidi changed her mind on same sex marriage. Changed from pre election to post election. Like we are all so dumb we can't figure out she was pro gay marriage all along. Oh, and that doesn't represent her constituents.

It's great the Senate voted this down. Now maybe liberally motivated police will not do this anymore: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/34 ... cj-grisham


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

What does same sex marriage have to do with the gun vote? My next question, why should we have any background checks? If we are going backwards, and no one wanted the background checks at gun shows, there should be no reason for having the same background check at a gun dealer?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport said:


> What does same sex marriage have to do with the gun vote? My next question, why should we have any background checks? If we are going backwards, and no one wanted the background checks at gun shows, there should be no reason for having the same background check at a gun dealer?


It has only one thing to do with it. It attests to how much you can trust someone. The same sex marriage has no bearing, but the going back on her word and camouflaging it with "changed her mind" is pertinent. The other point you talked about was representing her constituents. OK, again the same sex marriage becomes pertinent. I didn't make it pertinent she did, and so did you. You brought up representing her constituents. She is not representing her constituents. Don't confuse being liberal as representing constituents. Conservatives are constituents too indsport.

So far Heidi is batting 50/50 in constituent representation. I do appreciate her last vote. As a matter of fact I sent her a message saying so. I think when any of our representatives do the right thing we need to support them. Now I need to find my contact for Hoeven.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Okay, I'll bite and leave the same sex marriage out of it and get back to the original question:

Why should we have any background checks? If we are going backwards, and no one wanted the background checks at gun shows, why should there be any reason for having the same background check at a gun dealer?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

indsport said:


> Okay, I'll bite and leave the same sex marriage out of it and get back to the original question:
> 
> Why should we have any background checks? If we are going backwards, and no one wanted the background checks at gun shows, why should there be any reason for having the same background check at a gun dealer?


We are not going backwards, we already have background checks at gun shows. The gun show loop hole is a liberal invented term. Much like the Teflon coated cop killer bullets. A dealer at a gun show has to do a background check. However, if you have a used gun for sale that I want there is no background check required. Remember a mutual friend of ours bought a tanker garand at the Fargo gun show from an individual. He needed no background check. If I can sell you a gun at my house, a gun at the Stutsman County range, a gun at the Walmart parking lot why would I need a background check for you at a gun show? 
There is no difference between a dealer in a store and a dealer at the gun show. Both must do background checks. If I was at a local sporting goods dealer trying to trade in a gun and they said they would give me $400 and you looked up and said I like that gun and will give you $500 I would sell it to you with no background check. It's a transaction between individuals.

Perhaps I misunderstand, are you advocating doing away with all background checks?


----------



## bluegoose18 (Jan 9, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> I just heard the Senate rejected it. I also heard Heidi didn't vote for it. Wow freedom survived the attack.


Let's not celebrate to early now Plainsman or any one else . Today we won a very small victory in a huge war. I too agree with your statement above. We must continue to speak and fight for our freedoms and our rights! o.k enough with that.

But what concerns me as well as it should you and others are the thought of awaking an angry giant. Who wants so badly to remove the hardware that we all so cheerish in this great nation.. After browsing and reading the news prints this after noon it appears that angry giant is VERY upset. 
AND
We all know he likes to use his exuctive powers when congress is not in session. "Very Scary"

This is his war cry Fee Fie Foo Fum I'm here to steal your guns!!! 
If I can't do it then the U.N will have fun taking your guns!!!

ooops!??? maybe??? I should not have mentioned the U.N, Most everyone I speak to around these parts don't believe that yes the U.N can and most likely will try to get involved in the removal of all guns in america.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

"We are not going backwards, we already have background checks at gun shows.". " A dealer at a gun show has to do a background check." I agree, the first statement and second statement you made is true in this state but there are other states where it is not true. The actual language of today's amendment made federal law the same as North Dakota's when a gun was sold at a gun show by a commercial dealer. It exempted person to person to sales, it also exempted the transfer between just about any possible combination of relatives (up to and including first cousins) probably the wordiest part of the amendment.
Be that as it may, do you think North Dakota's current law for gun shows is acceptable? If so, why oppose a federal law that was the same as the North Dakota law you accept?

My question on background checks and eliminating them was rhetorical. By following the logic in reverse, if one doesn't want background checks at gun shows, that same person should have originally protested and fought against the original background checks. That would lead to no background checks. I am curious as to how many think there should be no background checks? That logically leads to no restrictions on any firearms. Should we repeal the 1934 prohibition on any weapons at all including full auto? I, once again, am curious as to how far back the current opponents want any gun regulation repealed?

The slippery slope however, is going the opposite direction. If you agree that there should be any restriction on gun ownership, where are you drawing the line and why?


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'd like to whop the next politician that says "there are no background checks at gun shows accross the back of the head"....... They are intentionally misleading the public with that statement. Guns shows are often an opportunity for a private seller to present the item he is selling to a large pool of potential buyers but ultimately if he makes a sale with a private party buyer the sale is no different than if it was in his home.

Background checks in themselves are not a bad thing...It's the record keeping that would accompany them that is the objection of most. If the govts goal is to stop or reduce sales to non qualified buyers why do they need information on the seller to accomplish that? They don't. In most cases they don't even need the sellers info to follow up and see if the in-elligible buyer actually bought the gun (which they probably wouldn't prosecute anyway)................ It's just a stepping stone to registration and restriction of rights. The politicians know it and the gun owners know it. It's the non-gun public that doesn't see it.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

indsport said:


> "The actual language of today's amendment made federal law the same as North Dakota's when a gun was sold at a gun show by a commercial dealer. Be that as it may, do you think North Dakota's current law for gun shows is acceptable? If so, why oppose a federal law that was the same as the North Dakota law you accept?


indsport, could you please refer to me the ND State law regarding background checks that you refer to.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Be that as it may, do you think North Dakota's current law for gun shows is acceptable? If so, why oppose a federal law that was the same as the North Dakota law you accept?


Because North Dakota legislators are conservative and will not back stab us on the gun laws. We have heard what Obama, Feinstien, Schummer etc think about guns. We know they will try take them any way they can. Some people say the United Nations can't do anything to us because of our constitution. Well that's not correct. If we sign a binding treaty they can mess with us even with a constitution. You can't trust a liberal and there are lots of them in Washington. They keep at guns year after year after year, and know that incrementally they will achieve their goal. We just have to hold them off as long as we can.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

"Because North Dakota legislators are conservative and will not back stab us on the gun laws." does not answer my question.

To paraphrase and make it simpler, why did people oppose federal legislation that would have made back ground checks at gun shows the same as we already have in North Dakota?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Longshot, ask Plainsman. he said "we already have background checks at gun shows."


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

indsport said:


> Longshot, ask Plainsman. he said "we already have background checks at gun shows."


Way to cop out indsport and not answer the question. Like a true liberal you know much of what isn't so.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Not a cop out. I trust Plainsman 100% to give the correct answer. He is much more versed in the laws than I am.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

indsport said:


> "We are not going backwards, we already have background checks at gun shows.". " A dealer at a gun show has to do a background check." I agree, the first statement and second statement you made is true in this state but there are other states where it is not true. The actual language of today's amendment made federal law the same as North Dakota's when a gun was sold at a gun show by a commercial dealer.
> 
> Be that as it may, do you think North Dakota's current law for gun shows is acceptable? If so, why oppose a federal law that was the same as the North Dakota law you accept?


The reason you won't answer is because much of what you have stated above is BS. What ND law are you referring to and please tell me what states don't require a background check for all sales done by a FFL holder. Background checks are mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993. This is federal legislation that covers all states. ND does not have legislation that expands on that Act.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Presently, 18 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Colorado (§12-26.1-101 and § 24-33.5-424, CRS), Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Seven states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.

For text of the amendment, see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r ... Av:e195265: under subtitle B


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Notice all of those states are liberal and you can't trust them. Also, look at their economic conditions. You know how they say your bad if you profile? I can tell you much about a state by if they are liberal or not. If they are liberal they are anti gun, anti hunting, in poor economic condition because they are lazy, pro abortion, anti religious, pro gay, and all other things disgusting.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

indsport said:


> Presently, 18 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Colorado (§12-26.1-101 and § 24-33.5-424, CRS), Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Seven states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.
> 
> For text of the amendment, see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r ... Av:e195265: under subtitle B


Good post. As you can see ND is not one of the states that have expanded onto the Brady Act. The legislation that was proposed and failed would not have made federal law the same as ND law as there is no such law in ND as you claimed. If you look at those states that have expanded on the Brady Act with their own state law you will also see where many liberals are contradicting themselves. During this last proposal they claimed that having background checks for all sales was working in their states. But if you look at what they were saying prior to this they claimed that the background checks weren't working and that they now needed gun registration to make it work properly. Do you see the path they are trying to lead us down? It's not the direction I want to go. After gun registration they'll be asking for gun confiscation. Many gun owners need to wake up and see the big picture.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I wonder how many of those anti gun liberals in Boston wish they had a gun today, instead of barricading their doors and shivering like cowards waiting to die.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I wonder how many of those anti gun liberals in Boston wish they had a gun today, instead of barricading their doors and shivering like cowards waiting to die.


None, the cops will protect them for anything bad....

I wonder how come they aren't talking about bomb control?


----------

