What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/4/2013 1:07 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 1:00 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

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

checking all guns sales through NICS

===

There are a number of problems with checking all gun sales through
NCIS:


That sounds like commie talk to me.
Americans overcome problems, not lay down and die.

1. Over time it becomes comparable to a national gun registration
system which is not what the founding fathers intended when they wrote
the constitution.


The Supreme Court decides that. Not you and the other gun nuts.
Registration in no way violates "keep and bear arms."
Hey....wait. The FF said nothing about keeping guns out of the hands of
murderers and psychos either.
How dare the NRA stand by and allow that travesty to occur.

2. Only law abiding citizens who have no intention of abusing their
gun rights will comply. For those with criminal intent it will still
be business as usual and a thriving black market will come into
existence.

Yeah, like the huge black market in automobiles.
Puke out that NRA kool-ade and smarten up.
Jesus Christ, since black market means illegal sales, and criminals are
illegally buying all the guns they need right now, the "thriving black
market" already exists - big time. And NRA and gun nuts refusing
tracking of guns are a big part of it.
Where on earth do you buy your logic?





Indeed, there is NO Constitutional restriction against the registration
of firearms. If there is, show it to us. It's not there.

There is no problem with requiring that ALL gun sales of any sort be run
through NCIS. You should not be able to buy or transfer a firearm to
anyone without a background check. If more help is needed at the state
and federal level to do this, so be it. The registration fees will cover
the governmental costs, and the FFL's charge a fee to handle the paperwork.
How did you dispose of the bulk of your collection? You had quite the
armament at one time.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 11:44 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/4/13 10:28 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/4/2013 9:07 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 9:02 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/4/2013 8:56 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 8:52 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



"Jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal."

-Stupid Scotty


"****ing ten year olds is legal", Mr. Dr.

Ahh, as usual, Stupid Scotty can't defend his ideas, so he goes after
people who don't post here, smelly little coward that he is, hiding in
his closet.

You are a crook, defend that...


You're a funny little man. There's nothing "crooked" about jailbreaking
a phone. It is perfectly legal.

Turn on the light in that little closet of yours, and come out into the
sunshine.

Why did you jail break it? Who's resources or intellectual property are
you stealing?


I haven't jailbroken my iphone 5 yet, because the JB, which reportedly
was going to be released yesterday, is now scheduled to be released
today. Hopefully.

I did JB my iphone 4S, which I no longer own.

I ran:

Killbackground, which kills all background tasks.

iBlacklist, which I paid $12 for, and "blacklists" calls from
individuals or organizations I consider annoying, such as repetitive
solicitations from telemarketers.

SBSettings, which allows me to have toggles for certain functions in a
pull down notification center.

Infinifolders, which allows me to add an infinite number of app icons to
individual folders.

That's pretty much it. The iBlacklist and SBsettings were my main JB
apps on my 4s.

Not a stolen app on the list.

Now, when are you coming out of the closet?

The IT specialist doesn't realize what Jailbreak does, won't every
understand either.


Nope, cause I'm not an expert at everything like you, but you are a
fraud, so.....

Call me what you want, the fact remains, I can learn and retain things,
and I don't spout off about crap I know nothing about like you. If you
didn't know about it, why did you pipe in then?

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 11:46 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 9:58 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 9:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 8:56 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 8:52 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:



"Jailbreaking an iPhone is illegal."

-Stupid Scotty


"****ing ten year olds is legal", Mr. Dr.

Ahh, as usual, Stupid Scotty can't defend his ideas, so he goes after
people who don't post here, smelly little coward that he is, hiding in
his closet.

You are a crook, defend that...

So aren't you then.


Nope, not running from my bills, not hiding assets... So, how's the
drinking problem going, leave any grills on the porch, how scared was
your daughter when your carelessness almost burned her out of her bed??

Please give specific answers to your accusations:

What "drinking problem"?
What are you talking about "grills on the porch"?
What daughter?
What "burned her out of her bed" are you talking about?

I'll be waiting.


You know, the daughter you don't have, then have, then don't have...

Cite? You left the others out. Perhaps it's time to see your slander go
away, and you too.....


OH no, threatened by a sock... should you be sending me a nasty letter
elsewhere saying "someone told me... """ LOL!

WTF are you babbling about NOW?

What guns would be banned:
 

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:29:08 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:44:11 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

I wonder why the NRA is working so hard on their behalf then?

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

Well, no. But that is a silly argument.

... 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.

All hail to the NRA.....


The NRA is just trolling for new members and it is working. They have
over a million since November.

This is all hype, on both sides and BOTH sides are pumping up gun
sales.
I was at Bass Pro Shop the other day and they are totally cleaned out.
The only guns left are bolt action .22s and a few single action
revolvers. Other than that it is empty cases.
The ammo is just gone. I bet they didn't have 500 rounds and in
calibers that are pretty obscure.

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.

Friday, Bud's Guns had no S&W semi-auto handguns, except .22's. Saturday AM they had the one I
ordered. Next day they're back to almost nothing.


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 ,
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.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:00:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

2. Only law abiding citizens who have no intention of abusing their
gun rights will comply. For those with criminal intent it will still
be business as usual and a thriving black market will come into
existence.

Yeah, like the huge black market in automobiles.

Yep that would be one and these are huge highly regulated chunks of
metal, not something that fits in your pocket.
They still disappear without a trace, get loaded into shipping
containers for the 3d world and Russia or simply get cut up for parts.


So you're saying cars should not have VIN numbers and should not be
traceble from owner to owner through registration, because they get
stolen anyway?
Go for it. BTW, guns can't be cut up for parts.
I know, I know, you always confuse guns with cars. And saw blades.
Gun nut logic.

What guns would be banned:
 

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.

What guns would be banned:
 

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

What guns would be banned:
 

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 guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:00:28 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

2. Only law abiding citizens who have no intention of abusing their
gun rights will comply. For those with criminal intent it will still
be business as usual and a thriving black market will come into
existence.

Yeah, like the huge black market in automobiles.

Yep that would be one and these are huge highly regulated chunks of
metal, not something that fits in your pocket.
They still disappear without a trace, get loaded into shipping
containers for the 3d world and Russia or simply get cut up for parts.


So you're saying cars should not have VIN numbers and should not be
traceble from owner to owner through registration, because they get
stolen anyway?
Go for it. BTW, guns can't be cut up for parts.
I know, I know, you always confuse guns with cars. And saw blades.
Gun nut logic.

The parts of a gun can be disassembled and redistributed.