What guns would be banned:
 

On Feb 5, 7:05*pm, ESAD wrote:
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! *:)

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it, Harry. I don't watch Fox
either.

I'd rather watch a movie with my wife, Now... Do I have your
permission to watch something on TCM, this evening? Or... are you
going to force me to watch Rachael, or Democracy Now so I won't be,
or at least sound like a 'faithful Republican?'

What guns would be banned:
 

Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:05 pm, ESAD wrote:
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! :)

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it, Harry. I don't watch Fox
either.

I'd rather watch a movie with my wife, Now... Do I have your
permission to watch something on TCM, this evening? Or... are you
going to force me to watch Rachael, or Democracy Now so I won't be,
or at least sound like a 'faithful Republican?'

Rachel is a lot of fun.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Feb 5, 7:35*pm, ESAD wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:05 pm, ESAD wrote:
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! *:)

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it, Harry. I don't watch Fox
either.

I'd rather watch a movie with my wife, Now... Do I have your
permission to watch something on TCM, this evening? Or... are you
going to force me to watch Rachael, or Democracy Now so I won't * be,
or at least sound like a *'faithful Republican?'

Rachel is a lot of fun.

That's nice.

So is AMC and TCM.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:04:30 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

No, I watched the Shawshank Redemption with my wife.

====

Good movie.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/5/13 8:44 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:35 pm, ESAD wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:05 pm, ESAD wrote:
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! :)

Party affiliation has nothing to do with it, Harry. I don't watch Fox
either.

I'd rather watch a movie with my wife, Now... Do I have your
permission to watch something on TCM, this evening? Or... are you
going to force me to watch Rachael, or Democracy Now so I won't be,
or at least sound like a 'faithful Republican?'

Rachel is a lot of fun.

That's nice.

So is AMC and TCM.



I loved AMC in its heyday, when it ran movies in their entirety and
commerical free and Bob Dorian was around. TCM is still pretty good,
though sometimes I think its movie library is overworked.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 8:16:14 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:

I'd rather watch a movie with my wife, Now... Do I have your

permission to watch something on TCM, this evening? Or... are you

going to force me to watch Rachael...

Hey, don't be so hard on her! She's fairly entertaining to watch, and she has some good recipes. I use one of her chili recipes as a starting point for my soon-to-be world famous chili.

You're talking Rachael Ray, right? :)

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

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

Yeah, we don't need any laws, right, moron? Do you not think that laws
saying someone can't break into your home and take what they want are
protecting you? What about rape laws? Not protecting anybody? Or do you
just mean the laws that you don't like?

What guns would be banned:
 

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:22:07 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:46:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:


Yeah, we don't need any laws, right, moron? Do you not think that laws
saying someone can't break into your home and take what they want are
protecting you? What about rape laws? Not protecting anybody? Or do you
just mean the laws that you don't like?

I think they are saying, why not start enforcing the laws we have
before we pass a bunch more?

Amen. Especially when the 'bunch more' would do nothing to prevent slaughters like Sandy Hook (by
the liberals' own admission).

Over a million people have failed the background checks we have now,
presumably because they were felons trying to buy guns and less than
0.03% have been prosecuted. Why even have the law?

You would be a lot more believable if you'd throw a few names around. The way it is, you sound as
though you know what you're saying.


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 2/6/13 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:10:47 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

I think they are saying, why not start enforcing the laws we have
before we pass a bunch more?

Amen. Especially when the 'bunch more' would do nothing to prevent slaughters like Sandy Hook (by
the liberals' own admission).

These people don't want a reasonable solution, they just want the
issue.
The only real solution that would satisfy them is the total removal of
firearms from the public by any means necessary.
If you talk to them long enough that finally gets blurted out.


That isn't happening, but...it's a good goal, so long as it includes
"everyone."

What guns would be banned:
 

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:43:58 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:10:47 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

I think they are saying, why not start enforcing the laws we have
before we pass a bunch more?

Amen. Especially when the 'bunch more' would do nothing to prevent slaughters like Sandy Hook (by
the liberals' own admission).

These people don't want a reasonable solution, they just want the
issue.
The only real solution that would satisfy them is the total removal of
firearms from the public by any means necessary.
If you talk to them long enough that finally gets blurted out.

Yup. Just leaving guns in the hands of criminals would be the solution - as long as there was a huge
government agency to make sure the law-abiding citizens didn't have guns.


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.