DaveTN

Disregard. That’s a big thread drift from John Moses Browning.

Ya know… sometimes CEO’s are not worth the ridiculous salaries they are paid. Sometimes they think their customers are too stupid to understand what’s going on. Sometimes they think making stupid statements to shareholders will overcome the problem. That is what is happening at Colt. Also.... How Colt Lost Its Big Contract To Sell the US Army Rifles (August 3, 2019) https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-colt-lost-its-big-contract-sell-us-army-rifles-71186 Also... I don’t remember exactly when it was (80’s maybe?), but didn’t Colt quit selling Revolvers and 1911’s to anyone but LEO’s? I hate to see this happen to any American company. They have an excellent product (including models they have discontinued); so it appears they need new management or at least some vision.

He’s such an idiot. And that picture of Biden whispering in his ear is really creepy. My sister keeps correcting me for not pronouncing Beto correctly. That’s creepy also. However…he did say out loud and in public what the rest of the dems try to hide.

I have Leupold, Vortex, and Nikon. I’m a Leupold fan boy. Besides the clear sight picture; they are much easier to get a sight picture than my other scopes. There is a reason they are King of the scope market. Elliot, I’m not saying your Nightforce scope's aren’t exceptional. But us mere mortals can’t afford them.

Like Chucktshoes, I’m not saying I think it would be a commercial transaction because it’s on a Web site, or that the web site would handle any part of it. I posted the bill that I did to show that it depends on what they define a commercial sale to be. No one cares what Webster defines it has; that has zero impact. The law would be whatever was defined in the text. But the way I read that bill anything that was advertised was a commercial sale. Under that bill your Arby’s scenario would be a private non-commercial sale and not require a background check. For that reason, I doubt it would make it though the current House of Representatives. That bill was VETOED, and I only used it as an example of how the word “Commercial” could be legislated to mean something other than what we generally think of. I don’t think any legislation that leaves any private transfer, sale or not, possible will make it through the house. Except for immediate family members, and they may no even go for that. I think most Americans simply think prohibiting criminals and mental cases from being able to buy guns is a good idea. The Democrats would like to take that one step farther and tie liability to anyone allowing advertising. They want to destroy all gun forums and gun sale sites. If Trump is the anti-gun President some here claim he is; they may get what they want. If he is not; he will not allow it to happen. That is, if it made it though the Senate; which it wouldn’t. However….this was just a memo. Barr hasn’t come up with anything legislators haven’t thought of. But since he doesn’t have to worry about being reelected; he can be more open about it.

We have always thought it took exposure over long times to impact our health. What we are seeing right now with vaping; shows that’s not the case. I sure am lucky (and amazed) I made it to adulthood.

If that email is legit he’s not real sharp. McConnell has said he won’t put up a bill for a vote that Trump won’t sign. It wouldn’t be “illegitimately scanning”; it would be illegally scanning. We need facts; not some clown fear mongering to sell memberships. However, it wouldn’t hurt to contact your legislators and let you know what you think. Because right now; background checks on private sales has a lot of support.

Certainly they would have a way of knowing; they simply go to the dealer where you did the transfer. The “Universal Background Check” as you well know is simply a term for doing away with private sales without the check. If you look at my last post on page 1 with the link to the NH bill you will see that your assumption about what commercial means is not necessarily correct. If LE wanted to charge someone with selling a gun without a background check they would need evidence to do so. If a person was charged with that, and didn’t do it, simply knowing the date, and location of the transferring dealer would clear that right up; just as it would now. However, if you are right then this whole issue is just an exercise in drama. Anything that creates a national database of guns would not pass Congress; so it’s a non-issue.

Here is an example from a bill that was VETOED in New Hampshire. I have linked the full info but just posted what I thought was the pertinent part. Had this bill passed in our state, it would have made a sale on this forum between private parties, a Commercial sale. And that is what they attempted to do in NH.

That’s why I posted that we need to know what that means. They are simply spit balling and we are just making wild azz guesses. Like any legal document or term; it will mean what they say it means.

Maybe I missed what you said before, fill us in. What’s one got to do with the other? We have HCP’s with background checks. The state doesn’t ask or know what we have.

A Commercial seller who is not a licensed dealer or transfer agent. We need a definition of that. I assume that to be any private seller that isn’t an FFL dealer. (Any of us that sell a gun) The obvious intent of the “Ideas” is to require background checks on all private sales. Anything less than that won’t pass the house. Like the FPC I don’t see why new forms or new “Transfer Agents” would be needed to do that. Unless they plan on leaving FFL’s out and having “Free” transfer done by “Transfer Agents”. If their intent is to make TGO, Armslist, GOC, or anyone that lists a gun for sale a “Commercial seller”; that would make their requirements the same as an FFL, and they would be pretty easy to get rid of. Not to mention the possibility of civil liability.

You mean like this?

No, they exist. Its just that they are as few and far between today as they were back then. I mean let’s face it, there is only one John Browning, one Einstein, one Jimmy Page, and one Jerry Miculek. We all get nostalgic, but when we start saying things were “better back in the day” it’s usually emotional BS not based in any fact.

That’s an excellent show and well worth the watch. The thing that impressed me most about Browning was that he was truly an Applications Engineer. He didn’t try to adapt what he already had; he started with a clean slate for the application he was working on. And as they point out at the end of this show, we can have the technology to make guns; but we still need the genius of people like JMB.

I don’t have one those, but I have an AR in 7.62 NATO. No quirks, misfires or misfeeds. Just 30 caliber American awesomeness.

When you shoot the first one; the others leave. I guess it’s possible they would all stay and engage you; but my experience with criminals makes me doubt that.

It really pizzes me off that the victim of an attempted home invasion by mask men firing guns at him has to worry about making a statement. While the Aunt of the violent criminals wonders if they were shot in the back. Armed thugs that have committed a violent crime are still an immediate threat; even when running in the opposite direction. They need to either thrown down their weapon and surrender; or be shot.

They can’t compete in todays market. Too many players with good products, at a lower cost. (AR's & 1911's) They can try to bring back their revolver line. But I doubt there are enough buyers in high priced revolvers to keep them going. They might have a chance if they priced themselves in line with S&W and Ruger; but I doubt they will. They need a polymer gun cops will want. (So the civilian market will want it) They tried that once and fell flat on their face. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/071315/why-colt-went-out-business.asp

That’s fine, they are claiming the high numbers are gun owners. “Gun Control” is a wide array of things, with numbers that high I would guess the OP is talking about requiring background checks for all gun sales.

Sad, but not surprising.

If a name that I want to talk with doesn’t show up as the caller; it goes to voicemail and most don't leave messages. So no, I don’t get polled. Do your own polls. Ask your friends, family and co-workers “Do you think people should have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm?” Your results will be different than from a gun forum. I don’t know what the number will be, but most will say “Yes”, and many will say they thought that was already the case. No special wording or manipulation of the question is required. However, we have been shown the accuracies of polls. If you are curious you need look no farther than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

They made the choice to turn their back on the civilian market. I had several Colts when they were still available. I’m sorry I sold my Pythons, but only because of what they are worth now. The Python would probably be a good seller. You will always have those that claim no company can make anything like they did back in the day. But they could make the Python better if they wanted to. They would have their work cut out for them in the 1911 market. Plenty of high end power players there, and Colt lost that market long ago. But its possible they could up their game.

We don’t know that at all. We only know sales were blocked at a retail store; not that it saved any lives. I’m watching the highlights from the debate last night. Gun control got big applause. I guess they think calling confiscation “Buy Back” makes it more acceptable.

Amen. And I don’t think we have yet seen the Democrat that will be running against Trump. But you can bet they will be getting every person they can to the polls; they will be voting early and voting often.