In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:01:04 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

NRA bull****. Cracker and gun nut numbers are already established.
None of fluster over guns will make a difference in Mississippi, or
San Francisco. Or Pennsylvania.
Stricter gun control will only increase the D vote, because that's where
Americans are.
Only thing that will keep the R's alive nationally now is if they use
their state legislatures to jerry rig the electoral college.
Then they'll get thrown out of state power too.
Face it, old white men with 19th century ideas are a soon to be dead
species as far as wielding political power.
And that's a good thing for everybody else.



I suppose internet protocol says I should bet you $10,000 or something
but I think you are wrong.


No surprise you channel Mitt Romney. That's exactly his protocol.
He also denied the polls until the vote was in.


Second amendment voters are not all in Mississippi. They are well
represented in the purple states and that is really where the swing
congressional votes are.

Got nothing to do with the second. The SC Heller ruling settled that,
and any new law will go through the SC for judgement.
What would you bet they won't allow the same licensing restrictions on
guns that already exist for car?
It's about gun nuts not wanting to take responsibility for their guns.
And you're just another gun nut.
That's the simple truth of it.

On Feb 3, 7:04*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing
something".
The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they
see which of these rules survive the vote.
The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun
designed to that rule.

Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide.....

If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect
them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than
simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line.

This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on
speeding.

... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

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?

On 2/3/2013 11:09 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing
something".
The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they
see which of these rules survive the vote.
The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun
designed to that rule.

Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide.....

If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect
them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than
simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line.

This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on
speeding.

... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

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?


It's all about the slippery slope to dems, all a compromise means is we
are gonna' reload and come for the rest...

On 2/4/2013 12:10 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/3/2013 11:09 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing
something".
The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they
see which of these rules survive the vote.
The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun
designed to that rule.

Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide.....

If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect
them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than
simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line.

This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on
speeding.

... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

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?


It's all about the slippery slope to dems, all a compromise means is we
are gonna' reload and come for the rest...

Insurance? No habla engles senor.

On 2/3/2013 11:09 PM, Tim wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:04 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing
something".
The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they
see which of these rules survive the vote.
The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun
designed to that rule.

Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide.....

If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect
them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than
simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line.

This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on
speeding.

... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

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?

I guess they'll have to resort to stealing them instead.

In article 15dacf33-ad36-406e-90ce-
, says...

On Feb 3, 7:04*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing
something".
The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they
see which of these rules survive the vote.
The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun
designed to that rule.

Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide.....

If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect
them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than
simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line.

This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on
speeding.

... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying
weapons in the first place."

Dick Durbin is an idiot.

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

In article 15dacf33-ad36-406e-90ce-
, says...

On Feb 3, 7:04*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 13:19:47 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
This is meaningless feel good legislation to prove they are "doing
something".
The manufactures have "post ban" designs ready to go as soon as they
see which of these rules survive the vote.
The Bushmaster that everyone is vilifying is a 94 ban compliant gun
designed to that rule.

Yeah, we should do nothing and let the NRA decide.....

If you are thinking about firearm manufacturers, this will not affect
them much either way. The "ban" is meaningless to them, more than
simply fine tuning the cosmetics of the line.

This is as silly as banning cars with racing stripes to cut down on
speeding.

... but democrats are famous for "doing something" even if it is
wrong. All this bill is going to do is endanger "blue" seats in
congress.

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?

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

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".

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:09:47 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying
weapons in the first place."

If they want to test the water on this, they could just open the
background check up to the public and see what response they get.
After all, if I want to sell a gun, nobody knows I have, to my
neighbor, compliance would be voluntary anyway.


Since when did following the law becomes "voluntary?"
Is that a gun nut precept?

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."
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. NRA and you gun nuts don't like it.
Because it makes you take responsibility for not selling your gun to a
criminal or crazy.
That removes criminals and crazy folks from you buyer pool.
Not good for sales.
Nothing to do with keeping guns away from criminals.
You gun nuts aren't fooling anybody except the gullible.
But checking all guns sales through NICS is a small part and won't
happen anyway. Need some more mass shootings and much more gun violence
to get folks irritated enough.
Might happen, might not. I suspect when and if decent folks gets fed up
with you gun nuts they will demand registration + NICS.