Jan Brewer Defends Arizona Firearms Laws Following Undercover Gun Show Video - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Jan Brewer Defends Arizona Firearms Laws Following Undercover Gun Show Video

This is a discussion on Jan Brewer Defends Arizona Firearms Laws Following Undercover Gun Show Video within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by CalicoJack10 Good to know. I should have paid attention when I saw his name, I am a ...

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalicoJack10 View Post
    Good to know. I should have paid attention when I saw his name, I am a bit of "A Clinger", so that should have tipped me off, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I just learned what forums were a couple months ago, so learning the other day about the ignore button was kinda like getting a new gun, I just couldn't wait to get to the range and try it. He just happened to run down range at the wrong time.
    Yes the ignore feature was created for people that did not have the strength to ignore it on their own and needed the computers to do it for them. Since I believe in the US constitution I have no need to suppress ones freedom of speech no matter how dumb I believe it to be instead I read it and take it for what it is then move to the next reply. While it does bother me to to say this NoGods point was a valid one that some have over looked. I on the other hand will concede and say to NoGods thanks for pointing out what Bloomberg was trying to show us by committing an illegal act to obtain a weapon to show us the loop hole. But being that he broke the law to prove his point means his ass needs to be locked up for breaking the law. For I would like to prove that I don't need a licenses to bear arms for my protection but doing so would mean breaking the law and my ass would be locked up for it. So what makes Bloomberg believe he is above the law when it comes to proving his point?

  2. #22
    S&W645's Avatar
    S&W645 is offline NRA Life Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    4,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Yes the ignore feature was created for people that did not have the strength to ignore it on their own and needed the computers to do it for them. Since I believe in the US constitution I have no need to suppress ones freedom of speech no matter how dumb I believe it to be instead I read it and take it for what it is then move to the next reply. While it does bother me to to say this NoGods point was a valid one that some have over looked. I on the other hand will concede and say to NoGods thanks for pointing out what Bloomberg was trying to show us by committing an illegal act to obtain a weapon to show us the loop hole. But being that he broke the law to prove his point means his ass needs to be locked up for breaking the law. For I would like to prove that I don't need a licenses to bear arms for my protection but doing so would mean breaking the law and my ass would be locked up for it. So what makes Bloomberg believe he is above the law when it comes to proving his point?
    In the many years that I've been on the web, I've never put anyone on ignore. Because even if you disagree with someone on just about everything, you still might learn something from them. And then find out that you actually agree on something. And I kind of have thick skin.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Regrettably, Bloomberg will never be treated or tried like people who have "tested" the airline security industry by carrying weapons.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CalicoJack10 View Post
    LMAO, that made me laugh. Good to see there are other that think like I do.



    You again? Really, why is it every time we start talking about something you don't like you start complaining and telling everyone how wrong they are for not sharing your ideals? Bloomberg completed an illegal straw purchase. For those in here that are slow, that means he unlawfully employed another person to purchase a firearm on his behalf that he could not legally purchase himself. The manner in which he did it is of no consequence, the fact is that it was done. And as far as JAN, as you so lovingly referred to, the fact is that she had little to say outside stating that Loonberg should mind his own damn business because Arizona had nothing to do with him. Any law abiding gun owner would know that, it is common sense among those of us that really value our rights.

    So as I have been looking for intelligent discussion, and you (No Gods) like to pick fights, i am going to wish you the best of luck and ignore you perminantly. Best wishes!
    Yep, some people hate it when facts get in the way of their hyperbole. There was no straw purchase. The guns were purchased for the people who purchased them to make the very point that people can purchase guns without a background check.

    Now carry on with your fantasy world. The rest of us will run the real world for you.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Yep, some people hate it when facts get in the way of their hyperbole. There was no straw purchase. The guns were purchased for the people who purchased them to make the very point that people can purchase guns without a background check.

    Now carry on with your fantasy world. The rest of us will run the real world for you.
    If Bloomburg gave them the money to purchase the firearms he broke the law. If the money came from any source other than their own funds and the guns went anywhere other than their own collection it was a straw purchase. His point is not relevant the law was broken.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    13

    Default

    This newest move by michael bloomberg is nothing new. The NRA has been doing battle with him for years. I read in the American Rifleman magazine that some years back bloomberg wrote letters to the politicians of the surrounding States, including Virginia, and encouraged them to support him on his anti-gun crusade. The only response he got back from them was to shove it where the sun doesnt shine. I thought that I have even read that bloomberg already served out his last term as Mayor, but bought himself another term anyway. Wether that is true or not, I was so looking forward to Jan giving him a political spanking. Well have to see what happens. I live in Phoenix, and I can say that it sure is awesome to have the free gun-laws that we do, and sad to see New Yorkers denied a basic human right and treated as crooks for doing so.

  7. #27
    S&W645's Avatar
    S&W645 is offline NRA Life Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    4,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireman836 View Post
    If Bloomburg gave them the money to purchase the firearms he broke the law. If the money came from any source other than their own funds and the guns went anywhere other than their own collection it was a straw purchase. His point is not relevant the law was broken.
    He admits spending the 100K so no matter what his motive was, he broke the law. He paid someone to buy guns. That is illegal.

  8. #28
    Nightmare45's Avatar
    Nightmare45 is offline NRA LIFE MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    2,917

    Default

    Hope not to create another issue but you might want to look up STRAW PURCHASE Blooome did this and violated not only state law but federal law no matter what his intentions were they were illegal. Your other point nogods of "letting us run the world" tells me all I needed to hear. Works in China, Korea not here. Peace and Love.

  9. #29
    santa is offline santa
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by FissionMeister View Post
    All you have to do is look to Egypt to see what Bloomberg and anti-gunners want. Egyptians want their country back and they are having to throw rocks. Our founding fathers knew better when they framed the Constitution hence our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Wise old Thomas had it right when he said "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny".

    FissionMeister
    well said. i might add when guns are outlawed only outlaws and polititans who are often outlaws will have guns.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    http://www.comcast.net/video/Gov-Bre...oxNews/newest/Hi Guys and Gals
    I couldn't bring it up on Fox News But it is available at comcast
    Last edited by Oldman23; 02-04-2011 at 06:31 PM. Reason: url added

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •