What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:21:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


It is an unenforceable law if you are talking about 2 individuals in a
private transaction of an unregistered item. That makes it voluntary.
It is like trying to make people pay sales taxes if they sell a lawn
mower to a neighbor. Is it the law? Usually. Is compliance voluntary?
Yes since there is no real way to regulate it..


You've completely forgotten I've said before that firearms should be
registered. That's what will eventually happen, whether you like it or
not. You might be dead by then, but you won't rest in peace.



.
Right now I have no way of submitting a background check even if I
wanted to. That is the loophole in the current law.

This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.


So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.
Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?


And if they require background checks on the federal level, they'll
probably use a version of California's example, where a trip to a FFL
and a NICS check are already required for ALL gun sales. It's a simple
matter of seller and buyer showing up at any FFL, filling out the form,
and the FFL runs the NICS check. The FFL charges 10 bucks.
There's only one problem with that.

So this is a new tax. OK it makes a bit more sense now.
Democrats love taxes.

So gun nuts want EVERYBODY ELSE to pay the estimated gun violence cost
of $100 billion a year - because they don't want to pay a $10 NICS fee.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Again, are you saying NOBODY in California ever transfers a firearm
without doing this? (even people who have nothing in particular to
hide)


I never said that.

That removes criminals and crazy folks from you buyer pool.
Not good for sales.

What does this have to do with me (other than your need to insult
people who disagree with you)
I own a transferrable machine gun. Any further background checking is
redundant.


I don't care what guns a gun nut owns. And there's nothing wrong with
insulting gun nuts who deny that people should be responsible gun
owners, and do their share to reduce gun crime.
There's lots of what you call "insulting" going on right now, and you
should get used to it, because there's more coming down the pike.

More people have died riding with Ted Kennedy in his car than have died
from any firearms I own.

What guns would be banned:
 

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


Dick Durbin says- "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

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...


This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.


So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.

How do they know there was ever a gun?


So you're going to get the neighbor down to the FFL to fill out a 4473
for the NICS check, and never show him the gun you're "selling" him?
To dig up "dirt" on him?
So now you think kidnapping is ok.
Better watch him close so he doesn't signal somebody in the gun shop
that he's been kidnapped.


Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Nobody has said anything about 4473s in this legislation. Now you are
just dreaming.


Who's dreaming here? I never mentioned any legislation.
You're the one who was talking about digging up "dirt" on a neighbor
using a firearms background check. The purchaser has to be in front of
a FFL for that to happen.
And the 4473 is already part of the NICS check. It has the info used in
the check.
So you're the dreamer - and you don't know much about this.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/4/13 8:51 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:58:31 -0500, BAR wrote:

Go for it. BTW, guns can't be cut up for parts.

The parts of a gun can be disassembled and redistributed.

Yeah, that certainly screws up all of that firearm fingerprinting
doesn't it?


So, let's not do anything because, well, it isn't easy. D'oh.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...


The NRA made over $35 million bucks since this hoohah started based on
the million new members they signed up and that has nothing to do with
the solicitation of current members for more money.


What makes you think the NRA has signed up any new members?
Because they say so?
And you just take that for gospel.
hehe. You sure are naive.

What guns would be banned:
 

wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:57:45 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:


So you're going to get the neighbor down to the FFL to fill out a 4473
for the NICS check, and never show him the gun you're "selling" him?
To dig up "dirt" on him?

Now you are trying to impose California rules on the US. The proposal
was supposed to be private transfer background checks. As soon as you
involve a FFL, it is not a private sale anymore.
I can certainly see why the FFL would like to tack his profit on all
sales tho.


Against free enterprise, eh? :)

BTW, your computer clock is off.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:22:51 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 2/4/2013 6:01 PM, Salmonbait wrote:


Ditto with Gander Mountain, WalMart, the military exchanges, most of the internet ammo sites. As
these places get them in, the guns are gone in a heartbeat.

Psssttt, hey buddy... do you wanna' buy some bullets? Shhhhh, call Tim,
I turned him onto a place to buy about as much as your little heart
needs... shhhhhhhh :)


What're they getting for 9mm? WalMart just got me for $13.95/50 rounds. But, could buy only 3 boxes.


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:
 

In article 1c9a48d5-f2c8-4817-b142-
, says...

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


Dick Durbin says- "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? 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 guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 6:13 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 5:48 PM, wrote:



It is an unenforceable law if you are talking about 2 individuals in a
private transaction of an unregistered item. That makes it voluntary.
It is like trying to make people pay sales taxes if they sell a lawn
mower to a neighbor. Is it the law? Usually. Is compliance voluntary?
Yes since there is no real way to regulate it..

It will be enforced if it is criminalized at the federal level.


He's right.. It will be enforced by our politically and racially
motivated "Justice Dept".. snerk

Please show where our "Justice Department" is "racially motivated",
idiot. OR is this just more of your insanity?

What guns would be banned:
 

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.
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."
Oh, you might be all legal.
But your thinking is dirty.
When folks finally realize it's the gun nuts like you who ensure
criminals always have an easy source for guns, things will change.
Might take another decade or two, depending on gun homicide rates and
mass shootings, but things always change.
A black president - two terms. (And a fair possibility for a woman the
next two terms.)
Universal health care.
Open gays in the military. Women in combat.
Guys legally marrying guys, and women women.
And just 10 years ago you would be arguing here why none of that could
ever happen. Impossible, just impossible. You may still be denying all
of that has even happened. Common trait of old right wingers.
Truth doesn't matter. What I believe is what matters. Anything I don't
like is impossible, and I'll give you twenty reasons why.
Including digging up "dirt" on a neighbor, or how a gun is a saw blade.
So excuse me if I don't take your gun prognostications seriously.
Now go take one of your untraceable guns and put it on your table saw
arbor. Or maybe attach it to a hammer handle or car bumper.
Just try to focus so you don't shoot yourself.

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! :)

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.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/6/13 4:22 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:50:24 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 2/6/13 2:43 PM, wrote:

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."

That is what the bumper sticker is all about

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Heroin has been outlawed for the best part of a century and outlaws
don't seem to have any trouble getting it.
Do we really want to push the gun business underground? Then we become
Mexico.



Everyone means everyone.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/6/2013 3:15 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
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.


That's the plan..

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/6/2013 3:15 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
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.


That's the plan..

Cite, liar?

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/6/13 3:15 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
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

--


Let's see...you spent most of your active working life working for the
U.S. Army, a huge government agency, then you worked for the Fairfax
County school system, another huge government agency, and your wife
worked as a civilian for the federal government...

....and you are opposed to government agencies.

You need to spend a lot less time in the tanning booth.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/6/2013 11:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:23:56 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 2/6/13 4:22 PM, wrote:

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

That is what the bumper sticker is all about

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Heroin has been outlawed for the best part of a century and outlaws
don't seem to have any trouble getting it.
Do we really want to push the gun business underground? Then we become
Mexico.



Everyone means everyone.

OK them first


It would only make sense to take them all from the illegal owners first.
But sense is not what the democrats are looking for, the end game is
disarming the citizens... period.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/7/13 12:05 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/6/2013 11:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:23:56 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 2/6/13 4:22 PM, wrote:

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

That is what the bumper sticker is all about

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Heroin has been outlawed for the best part of a century and outlaws
don't seem to have any trouble getting it.
Do we really want to push the gun business underground? Then we become
Mexico.



Everyone means everyone.

OK them first


It would only make sense to take them all from the illegal owners first.
But sense is not what the democrats are looking for, the end game is
disarming the citizens... period.


Your psychotic paranoia is amusing.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/6/2013 11:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:23:56 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 2/6/13 4:22 PM, wrote:

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

That is what the bumper sticker is all about

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Heroin has been outlawed for the best part of a century and outlaws
don't seem to have any trouble getting it.
Do we really want to push the gun business underground? Then we become
Mexico.



Everyone means everyone.

OK them first


It would only make sense to take them all from the illegal owners first.
But sense is not what the democrats are looking for, the end game is
disarming the citizens... period.

Holy ****, you are bat **** insane......