What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/5/2013 1:41 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:42:06 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night? Gun shows and private sellers at those gun
shows. They are not supposed to sell to someone who they think would not
pass the check. The undercover people time and time again, said right to
the seller that they probably couldn't pass, not one single seller said
he wouldn't sell to them. Some even said things like "I don't care".


What do you think their answer would be to "did you actually do a
background check?, you know it is the law."

Corey Booker (Newark Mayor) was on Bill Maher the other night saying
100% of the guns recovered after a crime were illegally obtained.
You need a state issued license to buy a gun from anyone in New Jersey
that includes a background check. How is that working out for them?

That's obvious to anybody not too busy spouting NRA talking points.

You dismiss any other view but your own as nefarious and expect folks to
listen to the rest of your diatribe? That's silly...

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/5/2013 1:41 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:42:06 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night? Gun shows and private sellers at those gun
shows. They are not supposed to sell to someone who they think would not
pass the check. The undercover people time and time again, said right to
the seller that they probably couldn't pass, not one single seller said
he wouldn't sell to them. Some even said things like "I don't care".


What do you think their answer would be to "did you actually do a
background check?, you know it is the law."

Corey Booker (Newark Mayor) was on Bill Maher the other night saying
100% of the guns recovered after a crime were illegally obtained.
You need a state issued license to buy a gun from anyone in New Jersey
that includes a background check. How is that working out for them?

That's obvious to anybody not too busy spouting NRA talking points.

You dismiss any other view but your own as nefarious and expect folks to
listen to the rest of your diatribe? That's silly...

And you are narrow minded and can't see anybody else's side unless FOX
spews it.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/5/2013 1:41 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
You don't want your guns traceable. You don't want to pay 10 bucks f

You need a good enema.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:41:20 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:42:06 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night? Gun shows and private sellers at those gun
shows. They are not supposed to sell to someone who they think would not
pass the check. The undercover people time and time again, said right to
the seller that they probably couldn't pass, not one single seller said
he wouldn't sell to them. Some even said things like "I don't care".


What do you think their answer would be to "did you actually do a
background check?, you know it is the law."

Corey Booker (Newark Mayor) was on Bill Maher the other night saying
100% of the guns recovered after a crime were illegally obtained.
You need a state issued license to buy a gun from anyone in New Jersey
that includes a background check. How is that working out for them?

That's obvious to anybody not too busy spouting NRA talking points.
Won't work when criminals can make an easy drive to Florida and buy all
the guns they want from you.

How did this get to be about me? Aren't you capable of having a civil
discussion without a personal attack.


Hey, pay attention. You're the one who doesn't want your guns
traceable. You're the one who started crying at the thought of paying
10 bucks to do a background check when you sell your gun to a stranger.
Started whining about Dems and taxes.
All NRA talking points, and you spout them like you were born for it.
WTF?
Then you treat me and everybody else like dummies by pouring more
bull**** on our heads, like the above.
You're an easy target for a "personal attack" when you countenance
facilitating criminals getting guns.


If a law was the answer to that problem, we wouldn't have a problem.
Interstate sales of firearms has been illegal since 1968.


More bull****. Point at unenforced and unenforcable laws - then say all
laws are bad. Murders happen so laws against it are bad.
Look, save that bull**** for other NRA morons.
I suppose calling your bull**** bull**** is a "personal attack."
Then you best just get used to it.
I don't respect those who support criminals having easy access to guns.
And that's exactly what you do. Just come up with every excuse under
the sun to maintain the gun status quo.
That's you pal, that's you.


And that's how you want it. You've said that time and again.
You don't want your guns traceable. You don't want to pay 10 bucks for
a background check. That's all "impossible."

If you really have to do the transfer through a dealer, why do you
think it would be $10?
The guy brokering my machine gun sale is getting about 15% and he was
the best deal I could get. Most want 20 or 25%. (granted that is a
form 4 transfer, not a 4473 but the work is about the same)

More of your ****ing dancing around. Now you're quibbling over a few
bucks and talking about machine guns.
Go find a NRA brother to bull****. Doesn't work with me.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/5/13 5:29 PM, wrote:

This won't be a few bucks if we have to have a dealer broker a private
sale, it will be a percentage of the price. (the point of my post
about a transfer that I do have to take to a dealer) That is why they
are only talking about a background check, with people assuming the
seller could do it. If they said they were banning private transfers,
this would never get out of committee. (assuming it could anyway)


The owner of a large gunshop/firing range in the Springfield, Virginia,
area, charged $20 to "ffl" the sale of my Sig X5 to its new owner. It
was a $1500+ transaction.

I ordered my CZ from the CZ Custom Shop out west and it was shipped to
an FFL here in Maryland, out by the Naval Air Station. He charged me $25
for the transaction.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:29:35 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:56:05 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,


If a law was the answer to that problem, we wouldn't have a problem.
Interstate sales of firearms has been illegal since 1968.


More bull****. Point at unenforced and unenforcable laws - then say all
laws are bad. Murders happen so laws against it are bad.

Laws that are meaningful are fine. Laws that are unenforced or
unenforceable are an insult to the system.
Why not try to enforce the laws we have before we pass more.
If a guy is willing to break several federal and state laws to bring a
gun into New Jersey or Chicago and the feds don't even try to catch
them, why would the crook be afraid of another law?
How many prosecutions have there been of people lying on the
application or trying to buy a gun illegally?
Over a million have done it, a couple hundred were prosecuted.

And that's how you want it. You've said that time and again.
You don't want your guns traceable. You don't want to pay 10 bucks for
a background check. That's all "impossible."

If you really have to do the transfer through a dealer, why do you
think it would be $10?
The guy brokering my machine gun sale is getting about 15% and he was
the best deal I could get. Most want 20 or 25%. (granted that is a
form 4 transfer, not a 4473 but the work is about the same)

More of your ****ing dancing around. Now you're quibbling over a few
bucks and talking about machine guns.
Go find a NRA brother to bull****. Doesn't work with me.

This won't be a few bucks if we have to have a dealer broker a private
sale, it will be a percentage of the price. (the point of my post
about a transfer that I do have to take to a dealer) That is why they
are only talking about a background check, with people assuming the
seller could do it. If they said they were banning private transfers,
this would never get out of committee. (assuming it could anyway)

This law is not going to mirror the California law. Just to get it to
pass, it will be watered down to a point that it is largely
meaningless, only being a burden on people who want to do the right
thing.

The purpose in passing a bunch of new laws is *not* to protect people. It is to enable the formation
of more agencies with more offices to hold more employees who are members of the AFGE.

Let's don't lose track of the overarching goal - bigger government.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your
parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:56:05 -0600, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:41:20 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:42:06 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night? Gun shows and private sellers at those gun
shows. They are not supposed to sell to someone who they think would not
pass the check. The undercover people time and time again, said right to
the seller that they probably couldn't pass, not one single seller said
he wouldn't sell to them. Some even said things like "I don't care".


What do you think their answer would be to "did you actually do a
background check?, you know it is the law."

Corey Booker (Newark Mayor) was on Bill Maher the other night saying
100% of the guns recovered after a crime were illegally obtained.
You need a state issued license to buy a gun from anyone in New Jersey
that includes a background check. How is that working out for them?

That's obvious to anybody not too busy spouting NRA talking points.
Won't work when criminals can make an easy drive to Florida and buy all
the guns they want from you.

How did this get to be about me? Aren't you capable of having a civil
discussion without a personal attack.


Hey, pay attention. You're the one who doesn't want your guns
traceable. You're the one who started crying at the thought of paying
10 bucks to do a background check when you sell your gun to a stranger.
Started whining about Dems and taxes.
All NRA talking points, and you spout them like you were born for it.
WTF?
Then you treat me and everybody else like dummies by pouring more
bull**** on our heads, like the above.
You're an easy target for a "personal attack" when you countenance
facilitating criminals getting guns.


If a law was the answer to that problem, we wouldn't have a problem.
Interstate sales of firearms has been illegal since 1968.


More bull****. Point at unenforced and unenforcable laws - then say all
laws are bad. Murders happen so laws against it are bad.
Look, save that bull**** for other NRA morons.
I suppose calling your bull**** bull**** is a "personal attack."
Then you best just get used to it.
I don't respect those who support criminals having easy access to guns.
And that's exactly what you do. Just come up with every excuse under
the sun to maintain the gun status quo.
That's you pal, that's you.


And that's how you want it. You've said that time and again.
You don't want your guns traceable. You don't want to pay 10 bucks for
a background check. That's all "impossible."

If you really have to do the transfer through a dealer, why do you
think it would be $10?
The guy brokering my machine gun sale is getting about 15% and he was
the best deal I could get. Most want 20 or 25%. (granted that is a
form 4 transfer, not a 4473 but the work is about the same)

More of your ****ing dancing around. Now you're quibbling over a few
bucks and talking about machine guns.
Go find a NRA brother to bull****. Doesn't work with me.

I suppose I could go through your post and point out the dozen or so bull**** comments you made. I
could also point out the things you said he said which he didn't.

But alas, you're too much like ESAD to make it worthwhile.



Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your
parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/5/13 5:14 PM, Salmonbait wrote:


The purpose in passing a bunch of new laws is *not* to protect people. It is to enable the formation
of more agencies with more offices to hold more employees who are members of the AFGE.

Thanks, Scotty.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Feb 5, 8:42*am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1c9a48d5-f2c8-4817-b142-
, says...



On Feb 4, 7:44*am, iBoaterer wrote:

DickDurbinsays- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying
weapons in the first place."

Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can
buy car insurance?

Cite?

Do I really need to look it up for you?

http://www.facebook.com/dickdurbin/p...88305181232922

Cite was about illegal aliens and driver's licenses. But, background
checks can only do one thing, and that is help. Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night?

No, I watched the Shawshank Redemption with my wife. I don't watch
news channels

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/5/13 8:04 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:42 am, iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1c9a48d5-f2c8-4817-b142-
, says...



On Feb 4, 7:44 am, iBoaterer wrote:

DickDurbinsays- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying
weapons in the first place."

Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can
buy car insurance?

Cite?

Do I really need to look it up for you?

http://www.facebook.com/dickdurbin/p...88305181232922

Cite was about illegal aliens and driver's licenses. But, background
checks can only do one thing, and that is help. Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night?

No, I watched the Shawshank Redemption with my wife. I don't watch
news channels


A true to the faith Republican! :)