More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Look, there's a serious problem related to having guns in the hands
of
those who shouldn't have them. We have laws that prohibit some from
gun ownership that are not a violation of anyone's constitutional
rights. Nobody disagrees with that. Having fingerprints on file
along with a cursory background check as a requirement for legal gun
ownership does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. All they
do
is confirm the identity of the person and checks that there is no
lawful reason for the person not to have a gun.

I would assume, if you are consistent, that you are 100% in favor of
ensuring that those who
register to vote are legally eligible to vote. Prior to registering to
vote they should have
to provide documentation that they are US Citizens, thereby meeting
the qualificaitons to
vote. Having them just check a box saying that they are legally
eligible to vote is the fox
watching the hen house.

----------------------------------------

I agree. I have no problem with that.

More info.. not looking good...
 

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:46:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.

Bull****
I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of
guns
to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law
abiding citizens.

-----------------------------
Questions for you:

1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected?
2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you
like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were?
3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer
isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a
responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner?

The end of this logical progression is a gun transfer tax and maybe
even an owner tax.


And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I
doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to
terrorists, criminals and psychopaths. So why not have universal
background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you
acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun
seller or transferer?



OK then why not allow me to dial up the NCIS and run a check on the
purchaser myself?
I can sell a car without going through a dealer, why not a gun?

----------------------------------------------

If that's what it takes to institute universal background checks, I am
all for it. There has to be a legal responsibility to abide by any
disapproval, just like a FFL however. If you go ahead and sell
anyway, you violated the law.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:46:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.

Bull****
I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of guns
to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law
abiding citizens.

-----------------------------
Questions for you:

1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected?
2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you
like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were?
3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer
isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a
responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner?

The end of this logical progression is a gun transfer tax and maybe
even an owner tax.


And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I
doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to
terrorists, criminals and psychopaths. So why not have universal
background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you
acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun
seller or transferer?



OK then why not allow me to dial up the NCIS and run a check on the
purchaser myself?
I can sell a car without going through a dealer, why not a gun?

We have to make sure that the FFL's have a revenue stream.

The CPA's and tax lawyers have a strong lobby and they always work against IRS reform.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most
states
you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big
deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and
buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes.
It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each
time.

The fuss is that exercising most of your civil rights doesn't require
prior government
approval. Why should selling a firearm require government approval?

--------------------------------------------------------

The government doesn't give approval. The government would only flag
and disapprove, based on a valid reason.
Nobody's rights are violated, including those of felons.

When my applicaiton to purchase a regulated firearm in Maryland is processed it will come
back as disapproved or not disapproved.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

wrote in message ...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:46:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.

Bull****
I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of
guns
to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law
abiding citizens.

-----------------------------
Questions for you:

1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected?
2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you
like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were?
3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer
isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a
responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner?

The end of this logical progression is a gun transfer tax and maybe
even an owner tax.


And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I
doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to
terrorists, criminals and psychopaths. So why not have universal
background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you
acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun
seller or transferer?



OK then why not allow me to dial up the NCIS and run a check on the
purchaser myself?
I can sell a car without going through a dealer, why not a gun?

----------------------------------------------

If that's what it takes to institute universal background checks, I am
all for it. There has to be a legal responsibility to abide by any
disapproval, just like a FFL however. If you go ahead and sell
anyway, you violated the law.

Are you going to require that prosecutors stop using the felon in possion of a firearm as a
bargining chip when getting the "alleged" criminal to admit to the primary crime? What good
is the law if it isn't goint to be enforced?

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:55:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Hank©" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 6/22/2013 7:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 6/22/13 1:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the
laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register...
Then of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These
people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two
party
system...


"These people" don't hate America. They simply don't buy into your
concept of what America should be. And, specifically, if anyone is
"destroying" the two party system we have here, it is the
Republicans,
who seem to be doing whatever they can to alienate as many voter
groups
as they can...women, students, Latinos, the elderly, the middle
class,
everyone, basically, who doesn't fall into the demographic and
thought
patterns of Southern white males.

The demographics in this nation are changing rapidly. Even a bastion
of
Southern white conservatism, Texas, has a chance of becoming a
"blue"
state within the next decade.

Adapt to the new realities...or die.

---------------------------------

Harry, don't let this go to your head, but I agree with you 100
percent. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone and it
certainly isn't the result of the election of one President. The
changing demographics of this nation that we are witnessing was
forecast 20 - 30 years ago.

I think the problem is that the "rules" we play by ... which
include
things like older cultural influences, tax codes and the general
subscription to a smaller government role in our lives hasn't kept
pace
with the demographic changes. It's still a very fluid process. Some
who
were more influenced by how things were back in the 50's, 60's and
70's
find it hard to accept and understand a larger government role that
includes expanded entitlement programs and other benefits, mostly
paid
for by those who didn't rely on those programs. Meanwhile much of
the
population growth that has led to the demographic changes have not
benefited yet from the expanded government programs in terms of
becoming
self sufficient. So it seems to many that a shrinking class is
being
expected to contribute more in terms of taxes and adjustments to
their
lives and expectations. That's understandable to a degree.

In my limited exposure to people's attitudes today I've seen a big
change in the expectations of the younger generation. They are far
more comfortable with having the government play a larger role in
their
lives than many of us old farts did when we were their age. Many
expect
things that I would have never even considered or thought of. Those
who
still adhere to the "old ways" are usually in their late 50's or
older.

You're right though. Change is inevitable and corresponding changes
to
how our entire system run and financed is needed. Priorities have
to
change. It will become easier as us "old farts" die off and ride
off
into the sunset.



We will have our memories of better times. ;-)

------------------------------------------

We won't have any memories. We'll all be six feet under, or spread
out as ashes somewhere.


Hopefully in the National Cemetery at Quantico, which just happens to be close to Forest Greens Golf
Course.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:57:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I think you are convincing me that the universal background check idea
presented by the Democrats is
more and more an invasion of privacy, and a means to grow the
government (and liberal voting base).

John H.

--------------------------------------

I don't need to convince you. You were already convinced.


Not true. I initially was in favor of background checks, until I read some of the paragraphs in the
Democrats proposal.

Also, the rationale 'Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear' causes me to rethink the issue. That
phrase is simply used too often. I was surprised to see you fall back on it.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:57:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I think you are convincing me that the universal background check idea
presented by the Democrats is
more and more an invasion of privacy, and a means to grow the
government (and liberal voting base).

John H.

--------------------------------------

I don't need to convince you. You were already convinced.


Not true. I initially was in favor of background checks, until I read some of the paragraphs in the
Democrats proposal.

Also, the rationale 'Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear' causes me to rethink the issue. That
phrase is simply used too often. I was surprised to see you fall back on it.

John H.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/2013 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:46:54 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:21:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Look, there's a serious problem related to having guns in the hands of
those who shouldn't have them. We have laws that prohibit some from
gun ownership that are not a violation of anyone's constitutional
rights. Nobody disagrees with that. Having fingerprints on file
along with a cursory background check as a requirement for legal gun
ownership does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. All they do
is confirm the identity of the person and checks that there is no
lawful reason for the person not to have a gun.




Why should any law abiding citizen care if his telephone calls are monitored and his mail read?


Why would a law abiding citizen complain about the cops searching
their house anytime they wanted and why would they need a right
against self incrimination or need guaranteed due process?
Those people who wrote the bill of rights must have been anarchists
who had an unreasonable fear of the government.

The government is always looking out for our best interests, I guess
we should throw out all of that dated stuff.

The self named "boat" guys can go first.


Isn't this the same government that just admitted targeting individuals
because of their beliefs? Thought so... The fact is "law abiding
citizens" were targeted for having opposing thoughts period. So no, even
as a "law abiding" citizen, I don't want the government to monitor my
email or phone calls... Especially when for all we know a phone order to
"Chic Filet" could end up putting you on a "list"...

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/13 12:57 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 6/22/2013 11:55 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:46:54 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:21:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

Look, there's a serious problem related to having guns in the hands of
those who shouldn't have them. We have laws that prohibit some from
gun ownership that are not a violation of anyone's constitutional
rights. Nobody disagrees with that. Having fingerprints on file
along with a cursory background check as a requirement for legal gun
ownership does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. All they do
is confirm the identity of the person and checks that there is no
lawful reason for the person not to have a gun.




Why should any law abiding citizen care if his telephone calls are
monitored and his mail read?


Why would a law abiding citizen complain about the cops searching
their house anytime they wanted and why would they need a right
against self incrimination or need guaranteed due process?
Those people who wrote the bill of rights must have been anarchists
who had an unreasonable fear of the government.

The government is always looking out for our best interests, I guess
we should throw out all of that dated stuff.

The self named "boat" guys can go first.


Isn't this the same government that just admitted targeting individuals
because of their beliefs? Thought so... The fact is "law abiding
citizens" were targeted for having opposing thoughts period. So no, even
as a "law abiding" citizen, I don't want the government to monitor my
email or phone calls... Especially when for all we know a phone order to
"Chic Filet" could end up putting you on a "list"...


I guarantee you *no one* wants to monitor your email or phone calls.