"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.

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!

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.

"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?

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.

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.

"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.