|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"BAR" wrote in message . .. 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? -------------------------------------- Huh? Weren't you in the Marines or the Marine reserves or something? You had a background check run on you then and fingerprints were taken. What's the big deal? I've had background checks run on me several times in my life for various reasons, both as military and as a civilian. I just don't understand why people are so up in arms (pun intended) about this. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/22/2013 11:55 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"Hankİ" wrote in message b.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. Speaking of memories. Do you still have that beer that you dispense by the thimblefull?;-) |
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... 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. -------------------------------------- My original post on this subject included a statement to the effect of, "If a *clean* bill had been submitted, the vote would have been different". As usual, politicians (on both sides) screwed it all up. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 6/22/13 1:41 PM, Eisboch wrote: "BAR" wrote in message .. . When my applicaiton to purchase a regulated firearm in Maryland is processed it will come back as disapproved or not disapproved. --------------------- Semantics. The bottom line is that the purpose of a background check is to make sure you are legally entitled to buy the firearm. The real "approval" is by whatever agency in Maryland regulates firearm permits and purchases. Maryland state police. -------------------------------- In Massachusetts a permit issuance is by the MA State Police subject to a background check and then at the discretion of your town's local police chief. The process actually works the other way around. You apply for a permit at the local police department. For a long gun, they must submit the application to the State Police. For handguns, the local police department determines what type of permit will be issued (if any). The application is then sent to the State Police where a background check is done. If clean, the requested permit is mailed to your police department and they notify you when to come pick it up. That's the only time a "background check" is done to my knowledge. After that, a FFL makes a call to the records department along with transmitting the digital fingerprint that I have mentioned when making a purchase. The purpose of all this is to simply ensure that your permit is valid (has not been revoked) and you are who you say you are. Hard to counterfeit fingerprints. Someday it will be DNA samples. Wow. Watch the gun nuts go crazy then. |
More info.. not looking good...
"Hankİ" wrote in message eb.com... Speaking of memories. Do you still have that beer that you dispense by the thimblefull?;-) -------------------------------- The first bottle was finished off. Someone gave me a second one a couple of years later. I never opened it and gave it away along with every drop of booze we had when we were running a sober house here for a while last year. Didn't want you know who to become tempted. Good stuff though. http://www.internetwines.com/rws28347.html |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... Actually, I was being sarcastic in my earlier comment. I keep hoping folks will look at Greece and see just what this dependence on the government can do. But, I've a feeling most of those 'dependant' are watching something besides the news and never reading a paper. John H. -------------------------------------------- John there's an old saying that goes something like this: "It's much more difficult to take something away from someone than to have never given it to them in the first place" I think our generation is having the most difficulty accepting the changes that are taking place. We can remember how it "used" to be. The younger generation (who really are the ones that matter now) don't realize what has happened. They're more interested in what they get for free or what they are "entitled" to. I see this all the time in the attitudes of young people. I am not blaming them. It's just the way they are being indoctrinated into society. |
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/22/2013 3:32 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"Hankİ" wrote in message eb.com... Speaking of memories. Do you still have that beer that you dispense by the thimblefull?;-) -------------------------------- The first bottle was finished off. Someone gave me a second one a couple of years later. I never opened it and gave it away along with every drop of booze we had when we were running a sober house here for a while last year. Didn't want you know who to become tempted. Good stuff though. http://www.internetwines.com/rws28347.html Say no more. really. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:48:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . Actually, I was being sarcastic in my earlier comment. I keep hoping folks will look at Greece and see just what this dependence on the government can do. But, I've a feeling most of those 'dependant' are watching something besides the news and never reading a paper. John H. -------------------------------------------- John there's an old saying that goes something like this: "It's much more difficult to take something away from someone than to have never given it to them in the first place" I think our generation is having the most difficulty accepting the changes that are taking place. We can remember how it "used" to be. The younger generation (who really are the ones that matter now) don't realize what has happened. They're more interested in what they get for free or what they are "entitled" to. I see this all the time in the attitudes of young people. I am not blaming them. It's just the way they are being indoctrinated into society. I see my sons-in-law busting their butts, along with my daughters. Most of the folks living around me now are of that generation. Only a few of us old farts here. Those folks are busting their butts also, I know of no stay-at-home moms here. Both adults work. So maybe it's the generation after that, or, more than likely, the multi-generations of inner-city folks who've been on the dole for a long time. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
"John H" wrote in message ... So maybe it's the generation after that, or, more than likely, the multi-generations of inner-city folks who've been on the dole for a long time. John H. --------------- It *is* the generation after. It would be your grandkid's generation. Don't know what they call it. |
More info.. not looking good...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Califbill" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... 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. --------- thatâs if you have or can get a permit to carry. Near impossible in most of California. Some counties are easier, but every urban county is about 99.9% no! ---------------------------------- That's what Massachusetts was like about 15 years ago. Permits for hunting rifles and handguns for target practice or competition shooting were approved but very few concealed carry permits (Class A) were allowed. Class B permits were the best you could expect which are typically for home defense only or for range shooting and does not allow concealed carry in public. How the allowed firearms were transported to and from the hunting area or shooting range was highly regulated (disassembled and in a locked case, transported preferably in the trunk of your car). Massachusetts remains a "may issue" state for handguns and a "shall issue" state for long guns (rifles). The local police department in your town makes the determination of what type of permit you can get. But people started challenging the authority of the towns and their police chiefs to be so restrictive in the types of permits issued. Lawsuits were filed and won. Slowly, most of the towns and cities began approving concealed carry permits but often with specific restrictions. I was fortunate. The officer who interviewed me knew me .... or *of* me for reasons I won't get into, but I was granted an unrestricted Class A permit which allows me to own and conceal carry any handgun (on the approved MA list or grandfathered) and to own any rifle, including the high capacity assault types that are so controversial. The only type of firearm I can't legally own with the permit I have is a machine gun or sawed off shotgun. I have no interest in the assault rifles (although they are a blast to shoot). I understand that unrestricted Class A permits are again starting to get more difficult to get lately, probably due to all the media attention on gun control. A couple of towns are trying to ban firearms period. Areas in Boston are becoming particularly tough. One thing my town had changed was the reason for applying for a permit which was traditionally, "For all lawful purposes". They no longer accept that as a reason. You must have specific reasons to justify a concealed carry permit. ------------- Calif. only requires permits for CC. No permit needed to own most guns. Have to have proof you owned, and registered your pre-ban AR type rifle. Why are they called assault weapons? They look like a military rifle, but are just a semi-automatic rifle. Just like lots of other hunting looking rifles. No full or 3 round burst mode settings. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
In article , says...
"BAR" wrote in message . .. 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. ---------------------------------------- And? What does a background check have to do with this? Why should I have to prove my innocence before I exercise one of my civil rights? You *do* realize (don't you?) that Constitutional/Bill of Rights experts, lawyers and judges are still scratching their heads and asses trying to figure out what exactly is meant by both the Second Amendment and your quoted text from the Forth. The Second amendment is a check and balance on the governments tendency to overreach. The fouth amendment is a check on the governments tendency to overreach. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
In article , says...
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... 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"... ---------------------------------- You obviously have not been keeping up with the current news on this subject. What did we miss? |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
In article , says...
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. 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? -------------------------------------- Huh? Weren't you in the Marines or the Marine reserves or something? You had a background check run on you then and fingerprints were taken. What's the big deal? I was finger printed at the age of 16 when I was hired as a GS-1 by the USDA. I also had to have a background check in order to handle confidential information. It was a choice and I didn't have a right to a government job. When I enlisted in the USMCR it was a choice and I didn't have the right to enlist. I have a civil right to keep and bear arms as a citizen of the USA. It isn't a choice, it is a right. I've had background checks run on me several times in my life for various reasons, both as military and as a civilian. I just don't understand why people are so up in arms (pun intended) about this. After I gout out of the USMCR I made the decision not to do government work. I didn't want to have to be subjected to background checks, security investigations and such just to enable me to work. I just want to live my life without constantly asking the government permission to do things. I especially don't want to have to ask them permission to exercise my civil rights. Why can people just walk up and register to vote and vote without having a background check to ensure that they are legally able to register to vote and vote? ----------------------------------- Sorry to hear about your gout. Left foot or right? No gout. I have developed arthritis. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 18:37:52 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . So maybe it's the generation after that, or, more than likely, the multi-generations of inner-city folks who've been on the dole for a long time. John H. --------------- It *is* the generation after. It would be your grandkid's generation. Don't know what they call it. The 'Grandkids' Generation. Luckily, mine have parents who are presenting a hard work ethic. Both my older grandsons took or are taking, geometry in the eighth grade - two years ahead of the norm. Now if I could just convince them that a military academy is a good place to go! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/23/13 8:22 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... They all missed my point. The point is like gun control... if we let them give citizenship, without *first* securing the border, the border won't get secured. There will be financing delays, lawsuits, and just "rules" made by administration officials that delay or sink the security end of the bill asap.... It's just the way things go in Washington, the Dems make promises "if" the repubs will just cave and of course like in 84 and the fence in '06... All we will end up with in millions of new dem voters.... Scotty O'reilly speaks!! It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. |
More info.. not looking good...
In article z_
, says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. |
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... |
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Basically what you all are saying is the proposed law that adds some 20,000 border agents will work to secure the border just fine, but if you add a wall first, it won't?? I don't get it... |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... You stupid fool, the Iron Curtain isn't a wall except in a few places!!! And: While the improved great wall prevented the Mongols from re-conquering China as they had previously in the 13th century, it did not keep them out completely. A band of mongols was able to sneak through and capture a 15th century Ming Dynasty emperor and hold him captive for a year. Then, in 1644, internal rebellions destroyed the ruling Ming Dynasty and the Manchu were able to enter China through the great wall?s gates. |
More info.. not looking good...
In article ,
says... On 6/23/2013 9:40 AM, Boating All Out wrote: In article z_ , says... It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Walls and fences are a joke. So are the proposed "immigration plans" I've seen. About half of the illegal immigrants came in on legal visas. What will it take to fix just that piece? A massive change in visa procedures. And massive hiring of INS agents to track down and deport visa overstays. But wait. Why do people illegally cross the border or illegally overstay their visas? To work. A working e-verify system and strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal immigrants, with stiff penalties - and I'm talking jail time - will take care of it all. Add a $500 government bounty for each illegal reported and deported. Shops using illegals didn't last long in the past. They got reported to the INS and a raid shortly followed. Any good union guy would report illegals. Now, with most unions almost dead, you need a $500 bounty to get the average dope thinking. Add swift and sure deportation for any illegal caught after whatever "amnesty" deadline is set. THAT'S the "secure border." That's all it takes. Which party has that in their "immigration plan?" Let me know when you find out. Basically what you all are saying is the proposed law that adds some 20,000 border agents will work to secure the border just fine, but if you add a wall first, it won't?? I don't get it... I'll bet NO one here is surprised that you don't get it. |
More info.. not looking good...
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... --------------------------------- The "Iron Curtain" was a wall? |
More info.. not looking good...
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... Basically what you all are saying is the proposed law that adds some 20,000 border agents will work to secure the border just fine, but if you add a wall first, it won't?? I don't get it... -------------------------- A "wall" sounds so medieval. |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:44:22 -0400, John H wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:02:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check (s), and who gets paid? See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and bureaucracy isn't the safety of the citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes. Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with a background check? Would the murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background checks? I am not convinced. John H. Many places require that any transfer of a handgun (private gift or sale) requires that the receiver of the gun must have a gun permit. Background checks don't seem to work, because they only "apply" to the lawful. By FAR, most of the gun violence is centered in large cities. -------------------------------- This debate is getting tangle footed. Here's what I would propose: A background check is required to obtain a permit to own a handgun or rifle. Once issued, the only "check" required to purchase a firearm is to ensure the permit is in good standing and the person buying the firearm is who he/she claims to be. That's where the fingerprints come in. I am not advocating a background check every time you buy a gun. The background check is done once to obtain a permit. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On 6/23/13 10:13 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... The Iron Curtain was not a physical wall, Scotty. There was a wall in Berlin, but that wasn't the Iron Curtain. And the Great Wall of China was breached, and more than once. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:16:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
That $9.00 price point was keystoned, so the stores were paying $4.50 a shirt. The manufacturer was making a profit at $4.50 and the workers were supporting their families. === Your math and/or word usage is incorrect. The manufacturer had "revenue" of $4.50 a shirt. Profit is revenue minus expenses. Expenses are considerable and consist of things like labor, raw materials, energy, administration, amortization/depreciation of machinery/property, etc. What you'd like to see is a return to protectionism where artificial barriers are created to foreign made goods: Duties, Tariffs, etc. It turns out that protectionism is a two way street however and other countries soon follow with their own trade barriers. In addition to hurting our export markets/jobs, protectionism also results in artificially high prices to US consumers - not only for imported goods, but for goods produced here as well. Be careful what you ask for or you might end up paying twice as much for your next car and get an inferior product. Did you ever take any courses in economics? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com