User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/17/2014 4:38:38 PM EDT
[#1]
He's already been here for a while pissing away money on petitioners, etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:20:45 PM EDT
[#2]
He threw a bunch of money into the elections and his picks were overwhelmingly defeated. With that said the fight has only just begun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:46:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He threw a bunch of money into the elections and his picks were overwhelmingly defeated. With that said the fight has only just begun. Unfortunately I believe you're exactly correct. It's the Commiefornia cancer that's killing the country, with the help of Bloomberg and others money. They fucked up their own state and are now spreading out, fucking up the rest of them too. They infested Colorado, Oregon and Washington, now look at how bad those states have become. Now that their numbers have grown high enough here they're going to try to take us down the same road. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 11:37:08 PM EDT
[#4]
From what I heard, they gathered enough petition signatures and it will be going forward on the next ballot, or legislative session or wherever the fuck things go when you pay people to say yes to shit.
I know one thing, You put a question on the ballot that says "Do you support background checks for all firearm sales?" I guarantee it passes. It's so ironic living in a highly civilized country, that those with all the guns wonder how, oh Lord by what method.... can the common man possible stop such tyrants from imposing their will on the poor peasants? Ha...maybe we are all just too civilized for our own good : 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2014 11:56:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I heard, they gathered enough petition signatures and it will be going forward on the next ballot, or legislative session or wherever the fuck things go when you pay people to say yes to shit. I know one thing, You put a question on the ballot that says "Do you support background checks for all firearm sales?" I guarantee it passes. It's so ironic living in a highly civilized country, that those with all the guns wonder how, oh Lord by what method.... can the common man possible stop such tyrants from imposing their will on the poor peasants? Ha...maybe we are all just too civilized for our own good :
I don't have much hope of defeating it just because of the stupidity of people. They don't see that this is just a trojan horse for registration of all guns and ultimately confiscation. This is just one solid step in that direction. You really can't lose when you bet on ignorance and stupidity to carry the day. With that said, I am not about to give up. We must fight this thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 12:54:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Does our proposed bill have any loopholes or exemptions like Washington's does? If not, that may actually help us fight this.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check. A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:44:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does our proposed bill have any loopholes or exemptions like Washington's does? If not, that may actually help us fight this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does our proposed bill have any loopholes or exemptions like Washington's does? If not, that may actually help us fight this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check. A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol. I must be the only one here who has faith that we can fight and defeat this, but yeah there's a lot of similar language. I think if we have our Republican legislature work on it, we can take the teeth out of it: Mandate the destruction of records after a successful bg check, CCW exemption, change the bullshit about ranges and make it a "less-than 24 hour period" (those of us who shoot on public/private land). If all that fails, well...there's another plan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 2:13:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I must be the only one here who has faith that we can fight and defeat this, but yeah there's a lot of similar language. I think if we have our Republican legislature work on it, we can take the teeth out of it: Mandate the destruction of records after a successful bg check, CCW exemption, change the bullshit about ranges and make it a "less-than 24 hour period" (those of us who shoot on public/private land). If all that fails, well...there's another plan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Does our proposed bill have any loopholes or exemptions like Washington's does? If not, that may actually help us fight this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check. A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol. I must be the only one here who has faith that we can fight and defeat this, but yeah there's a lot of similar language. I think if we have our Republican legislature work on it, we can take the teeth out of it: Mandate the destruction of records after a successful bg check, CCW exemption, change the bullshit about ranges and make it a "less-than 24 hour period" (those of us who shoot on public/private land). If all that fails, well...there's another plan. I'm not super optimistic about this one, normally I am, but putting it in the hands of the voters scares me. Especially when we elected Obama twice, keep putting Harry Reid in office, and they were able to gather so many signatures. Education on the issues is not their strong suit. I admit I was shocked when I saw how many people were happy to sign the petition first hand when I went to early vote. Seemed like almost anyone he called over to sign the petition did so, and that was in a nicer part of town that probably had less liberals than most of the other parts... Maybe that is the reason for my pessimism. That said, I do think there's something to be said for education. The internet is a great tool for gun owners these days too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:08:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not super optimistic about this one, normally I am, but putting it in the hands of the voters scares me. Especially when we elected Obama twice, keep putting Harry Reid in office, and they were able to gather so many signatures. Education on the issues is not their strong suit. I admit I was shocked when I saw how many people were happy to sign the petition first hand when I went to early vote. Seemed like almost anyone he called over to sign the petition did so, and that was in a nicer part of town that probably had less liberals than most of the other parts... Maybe that is the reason for my pessimism. That said, I do think there's something to be said for education. The internet is a great tool for gun owners these days too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does our proposed bill have any loopholes or exemptions like Washington's does? If not, that may actually help us fight this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check. A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol. I must be the only one here who has faith that we can fight and defeat this, but yeah there's a lot of similar language. I think if we have our Republican legislature work on it, we can take the teeth out of it: Mandate the destruction of records after a successful bg check, CCW exemption, change the bullshit about ranges and make it a "less-than 24 hour period" (those of us who shoot on public/private land). If all that fails, well...there's another plan. I'm not super optimistic about this one, normally I am, but putting it in the hands of the voters scares me. Especially when we elected Obama twice, keep putting Harry Reid in office, and they were able to gather so many signatures. Education on the issues is not their strong suit. I admit I was shocked when I saw how many people were happy to sign the petition first hand when I went to early vote. Seemed like almost anyone he called over to sign the petition did so, and that was in a nicer part of town that probably had less liberals than most of the other parts... Maybe that is the reason for my pessimism. That said, I do think there's something to be said for education. The internet is a great tool for gun owners these days too. Probably because he lied when he told them what they were signing. These people were all over TMCC before the election too. When they asked me to sign, they said it was to close a loophole that "leys people buy guns over the internet without a background check." Which is a lie; afaik guns purchased over the internet ALREADY require a background check. The last few guns I bought over the internet were required by the sellers to be shipped to a licensed FFL who then ran the required background check on me. But then they lied about what the "medical" MJ petition was about, too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 7:45:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably because he lied when he told them what they were signing. These people were all over TMCC before the election too. When they asked me to sign, they said it was to close a loophole that "leys people buy guns over the internet without a background check." Which is a lie; afaik guns purchased over the internet ALREADY require a background check. The last few guns I bought over the internet were required by the sellers to be shipped to a licensed FFL who then ran the required background check on me. But then they lied about what the "medical" MJ petition was about, too... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does our proposed bill have any loopholes or exemptions like Washington's does? If not, that may actually help us fight this. http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/12/washington-gun-owners-plan-mass-defiance The measure would establish a number of exceptions to the background check requirement. A background check would not be required to transfer a firearm by gift between family members. The background check requirement also would not apply to the sale or transfer of antique firearms. It also would not apply to certain temporary transfers of a firearm when needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Background checks would not be required for certain public agencies or officers acting in their official capacity, including law enforcement or corrections agencies or officers, members of the military, and federal officials. Federally licensed gunsmiths who receive firearms solely to service or repair them would not be required to undergo background checks.
Certain other temporary transfers of a firearm would also not require a background check. These include temporary transfers between spouses, and temporary transfers for use at a shooting range, in a competition, or for performances. A temporary transfer to a person under age eighteen for hunting, sporting, or education would not require a background check. Other temporary transfers for lawful hunting also would not require a background check. A person who inherited a firearm other than a pistol upon the death of its former owner would not be required to undergo a background check. A person who inherited a pistol would either have to lawfully transfer the pistol within 60 days or inform the department of licensing that he or she intended to keep the pistol. I must be the only one here who has faith that we can fight and defeat this, but yeah there's a lot of similar language. I think if we have our Republican legislature work on it, we can take the teeth out of it: Mandate the destruction of records after a successful bg check, CCW exemption, change the bullshit about ranges and make it a "less-than 24 hour period" (those of us who shoot on public/private land). If all that fails, well...there's another plan. I'm not super optimistic about this one, normally I am, but putting it in the hands of the voters scares me. Especially when we elected Obama twice, keep putting Harry Reid in office, and they were able to gather so many signatures. Education on the issues is not their strong suit. I admit I was shocked when I saw how many people were happy to sign the petition first hand when I went to early vote. Seemed like almost anyone he called over to sign the petition did so, and that was in a nicer part of town that probably had less liberals than most of the other parts... Maybe that is the reason for my pessimism. That said, I do think there's something to be said for education. The internet is a great tool for gun owners these days too. Probably because he lied when he told them what they were signing. These people were all over TMCC before the election too. When they asked me to sign, they said it was to close a loophole that "leys people buy guns over the internet without a background check." Which is a lie; afaik guns purchased over the internet ALREADY require a background check. The last few guns I bought over the internet were required by the sellers to be shipped to a licensed FFL who then ran the required background check on me. But then they lied about what the "medical" MJ petition was about, too... When these cocksuckers say "guns bought over the internet" they don't mean Gunbroker or the like, they are talking about our hometown forum ee, Armslist, Craigslist, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 9:32:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Good luck selling ANY firearm on Craigslist!
Anything even remotely firearm related, or even mentioning firearms in ANY way, will be flagged and taken down faster than you can put it up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 1:35:25 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good luck selling ANY firearm on Craigslist! Anything even remotely firearm related, or even mentioning firearms in ANY way, will be flagged and taken down faster than you can put it up. That may be true, I'm just clarifying what these cocksuckers are babbling about when they talk about internet gun sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 2:15:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Make sure to join the Nevada firearms coalition if you aren't already a member. The more members they have the more power they have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 5:25:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Ugh, not looking forward to this. It's going to be a hell of a fight, and we'll probably lose, since these mouth breathers got enough signatures for a ballot initiative.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's already been here for a while pissing away money on petitioners, etc. I may or may not have lost my tempter on one of the petitioners a few weeks back... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2014 10:03:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Private party sales don't require a background check. They're saying "purchased over the internet" because we use the internet to buy them instead of posting up GUNS FOR SALE at a sports store with your phone number. They want to have background checks on ALL purchases and it's not a complete lie when they say "purchased over the internet" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 1:09:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ugh, not looking forward to this. It's going to be a hell of a fight, and we'll probably lose, since these mouth breathers got enough signatures for a ballot initiative. I may or may not have lost my tempter on one of the petitioners a few weeks back... Quote HistoryQuoted: Ugh, not looking forward to this. It's going to be a hell of a fight, and we'll probably lose, since these mouth breathers got enough signatures for a ballot initiative. Quoted: He's already been here for a while pissing away money on petitioners, etc. I may or may not have lost my tempter on one of the petitioners a few weeks back... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 2:30:02 PM EDT
[#17]
It's already a hot topic outside of Nevada.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/blooming-assault-on-nevada-gun-rights/ Hopefully we will be able to get some outside help on this. But by 2016 it will likely have been rammed down the throats of other states citizens as well which dilutes our ability to respond. So far as I am concerned this IS a genuine "Conspiracy" (I know the definition of conspiracy, this fits!) to deprive American citizens of an enumerated constitutional right. Bloom-turd, Missed-the-Mark Kelly, Swine-stain, and the rest of the lunatics attempting this plot should be charged with sedition. I've been trying to reach our NVFAC people for several days to ask about a fundraising idea but have not heard back from them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 7:33:39 PM EDT
[#18]
The only way we will win this is to get and continue to stay active. Join the Nevada firearms coalition. Join the NRA. Write your politicians and try to educate as many people as you can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 5:07:31 PM EDT
[#19]
For reference use.
http://mrconservative.com/2014/05/40920-watch-these-liberals-admit-their-gun-control-policies-dont-work/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2014 9:54:16 PM EDT
[#20]
So if this is voted into law what do we do just lay down and piss on ourselves.
Or do we become criminals. We need to start finding out now how our State Representatives plan to kill this. We need to start going on the offensive and promoting ourselves as Law abiding citizens instead of cowering in the corner hoping they don't notice us. You might ask what am I doing. Elko has a Elko Peoples Facebook page and everytime I can I promote the Second Amendment. Most of Elko is pro gun anyway but we have a lot of outsiders coming in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2014 3:43:21 AM EDT
[#21]
Keep an eye on WA. They are staging a mass protest and 6000+ are planning on breaking the law on like Dec 10th or something.
Peaceful massive non compliance is the key! Let's try and not let it get to that point though. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
