More info.. not looking good...
 

In article
,
says...


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

I agree with you and am in favor of universal background checks. I
disagreed with your assertion that law abiding "gun nuts" (to use
your description) generally are opposed to them.

I've mentioned who I consider gun nuts before. Everybody
is welcome to their own definition. I don't consider all
NRA members gun nuts. I don't consider hunters, range
shooters, self-defense gun owners (concealed carry or
not) to be de facto gun nuts.
As long as they follow the law, I have no problem with
them and don't call them gun nuts. Never have, except
maybe when I called Harry a gun nut.
I apologized for that soon after.
I'll also used the term against those who want "gun
safety" classes forced on all children in public schools.
Whether they are real gun nuts or just misguided and led
temporarily insane by actual gun nuts, it works and fits
well enough.
Sue me for rhetorical misconduct if you want.

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.
He's expressed that view numerous times.
There's no denying it, and it's as simple as that.
Call a person with those views whatever you want.
I call gun nut. No question about it all to me.
Couldn't ask for a better example of gun nut.
Glad he's here, because his example provides insight into
how a pure gun nut uses distraction, evasion and
illogical argument. AKA dancing.
To justify, defend and deny selling guns to terrorists,
criminals and psychopaths - all at once.
Pure Wayne LaPierre. Pure gun nut.
He's okay otherwise, of course. Ideology without close
examination often gets the best of people.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

If a clean bill were
introduced without a list of amendments by some members of Congress
with personal agendas, it is likely that the NRA's opposition and
lobbying strength could be overcome.


The problem with universail background checkds for everyone is that it
turns into a gun
registration program. With the government's appitite for any and all
informaiton it can get
its hands on you should be wary of giving them more data.

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

That's the standard, Wayne LaPierre led NRA answer to the question of
background checks. The proposed bill that was defeated in Congress
specifically outlawed the creation of any gun registration program
with a 15 year prison sentence for anyone who tried to create one.
But nobody talked much about that.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...


I wonder, which of the massacres would have been prevented by
universal background checks?

John H.


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

Probably none. But it's just common sense that anyone who wants to
assume the responsibility of gun ownership should be given a basic
background check to make sure they are not a felon or person with
mental disabilities or problems, don't you think? Plus, John, you
were discussing earlier the private transfer of a gun to another
person. Don't you think that as a responsible gun owner you should
have a means to ensure you are not selling your handgun to a criminal
or mental deficient? You mentioned that the seller of a handgun to
you didn't know you from Adam. I think having the ability to ensure
you are not selling to a nut it's part of the responsibility of owning
a firearm.

More info.. not looking good...
 

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article
,
says...


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

I agree with you and am in favor of universal background checks.
I
disagreed with your assertion that law abiding "gun nuts" (to use
your description) generally are opposed to them.

I've mentioned who I consider gun nuts before. Everybody
is welcome to their own definition. I don't consider all
NRA members gun nuts. I don't consider hunters, range
shooters, self-defense gun owners (concealed carry or
not) to be de facto gun nuts.
As long as they follow the law, I have no problem with
them and don't call them gun nuts. Never have, except
maybe when I called Harry a gun nut.
I apologized for that soon after.
I'll also used the term against those who want "gun
safety" classes forced on all children in public schools.
Whether they are real gun nuts or just misguided and led
temporarily insane by actual gun nuts, it works and fits
well enough.
Sue me for rhetorical misconduct if you want.

gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.
He's expressed that view numerous times.
There's no denying it, and it's as simple as that.
Call a person with those views whatever you want.
I call gun nut. No question about it all to me.
Couldn't ask for a better example of gun nut.
Glad he's here, because his example provides insight into
how a pure gun nut uses distraction, evasion and
illogical argument. AKA dancing.
To justify, defend and deny selling guns to terrorists,
criminals and psychopaths - all at once.
Pure Wayne LaPierre. Pure gun nut.
He's okay otherwise, of course. Ideology without close
examination often gets the best of people.

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

You're in Florida, right?

I think I know who you are ... or *were* under a different handle.
Your style of writing and thought process is identical to a guy who
used to post here two or three years ago.
Not a bad thing or complaint. Just an observation.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/21/2013 10:01 PM, 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.

I would think in the spirit of the group lately, this type of rant
should pretty much disqualify you from further consideration...

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"John H" wrote in message
...


I wonder, which of the massacres would have been prevented by
universal background checks?

John H.


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

Probably none. But it's just common sense that anyone who wants to
assume the responsibility of gun ownership should be given a basic
background check to make sure they are not a felon or person with
mental disabilities or problems, don't you think? Plus, John, you
were discussing earlier the private transfer of a gun to another
person. Don't you think that as a responsible gun owner you should
have a means to ensure you are not selling your handgun to a criminal
or mental deficient? You mentioned that the seller of a handgun to
you didn't know you from Adam. I think having the ability to ensure
you are not selling to a nut it's part of the responsibility of owning
a firearm.

I can go along with the only people allowed to vote, have firearms, receive welfare, and
other taxpayer provided monies and support being US citizens who are not felons.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

If a clean bill were
introduced without a list of amendments by some members of Congress
with personal agendas, it is likely that the NRA's opposition and
lobbying strength could be overcome.


The problem with universail background checkds for everyone is that it
turns into a gun
registration program. With the government's appitite for any and all
informaiton it can get
its hands on you should be wary of giving them more data.

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

That's the standard, Wayne LaPierre led NRA answer to the question of
background checks. The proposed bill that was defeated in Congress
specifically outlawed the creation of any gun registration program
with a 15 year prison sentence for anyone who tried to create one.
But nobody talked much about that.



With president, I decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, he will just
chose to ignore that law just like all of the other laws that he has chosen not to enforce.

We are getting to the point where the law doesn't matter. The government will just say that
they are the legal authority and they decide what the law is.

More info.. not looking good...
 

In article , says...

"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.

Why should citizens have to be fingerprinted in order to exercise their constitutional
rights. Next you will want the police to scan the fingers of those who are speaking in
public.

More info.. not looking good...
 

On 6/22/2013 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are talking about universal registration, not background checks.
Otherwise there is no "paper trail".

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

Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal"
meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way.
Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase.

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.


The only way you can enforce a universal background check for private
transfers is to have universal registration. That is what they are not
telling you.


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...

More info.. not looking good...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

"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.

Why should citizens have to be fingerprinted in order to exercise
their constitutional
rights. Next you will want the police to scan the fingers of those who
are speaking in
public.

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

Why should any law abiding citizen care? My fingerprints have been
on file with the FBI for over 40 years. So have yours if you were
ever in the military or held a security clearance.

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.