mnealtx 0 #151 December 24, 2008 Referencing your 'factcheck' page about Obama - can you find a single PRO-second amendment law he has voted for?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #152 December 24, 2008 QuoteReferencing your 'factcheck' page about Obama - can you find a single PRO-second amendment law he has voted for? Can you explain the relevance to this thread, or are you off on a diversion?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #153 December 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhat can a seller or buyer do at a gun show that they can't do 50 feet away off the property? An FFL seller must have the transferee fill out a Form 4473 and run a background check before concluding the sale. A non-FFL seller (private individual) must negotiate a price, receive the cash and hand over the weapon to the buyer (no Form 4473 or background check required). Agreed. These requirements apply regardless of where the face-to-face transaction takes place. Since some shows put extra requirements inplace it can be, if anything, more difficult to transfer between private parties at a show than outside.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #154 December 24, 2008 LOL, Mike. I think it was pretty obvious that Obama's legislative record was pretty thin about anything. The link was not meant to cast any support for Obama, but to demonstrate the NRA's tactics of fear-mongering.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #155 December 24, 2008 QuoteLOL, Mike. I think it was pretty obvious that Obama's legislative record was pretty thin about anything. The link was not meant to cast any support for Obama, but to demonstrate the NRA's tactics of fear-mongering. Seeing as how the only evidence I can find of Obama supporting the Second is his campaign promises, I hardly find it 'fear-mongering'. Research his positions on gun votes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #156 December 24, 2008 QuoteSince some shows put extra requirements inplace True. Some gun shows prohibit individual sales.. well, let me re-phrase that.. some shows require all weapon transfers be done thru an FFL (for which the FFL charges like $15.00 because the weapon is technically being re-entered into the system thru his/her license).Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #157 December 24, 2008 QuoteLOL, Mike. I think it was pretty obvious that Obama's legislative record was pretty thin about anything. The link was not meant to cast any support for Obama, but to demonstrate the NRA's tactics of fear-mongering. Here: www.gunguys.com/?p=1061 The purpose is to get lots of suckers paying for LaPierre's lavish lifestyle.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #158 December 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteReferencing your 'factcheck' page about Obama - can you find a single PRO-second amendment law he has voted for? Can you explain the relevance to this thread, or are you off on a diversion? Simple - bigun has referenced that page several times in this thread. Seeing as how YOU just posted a link to a story about unemployment in a thread about the SOFA agreement for Iraq, you probably shouldn't be talking about diversions, don't you think?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #159 December 24, 2008 Quote Quote The law is very clear about which transactions need to be made through a licensed dealer, which ones can be made through private parties, which ones need require a background check, and which ones don't. The same laws apply at gun shows that apply outside the show, across the street, etc. This is my last and hopefully succinct summation . . . . . Your kidding, right? Succinct. Summation. I'd hate to see when you get longwinded. Don't flame me; just funning you. Have a good one." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,483 #160 December 24, 2008 Quote I'd hate to see when you get longwinded. It can get pretty ugly. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #161 December 24, 2008 QuoteAt issue is the polarization of Class I ownership perpetuated by the NRA's methodology and whose only product to generate revenue is to maintain and increase membership by selling disinformation and causing fear which stimulates demand and increases gun prices. Of the revenues generated, more than 50% of that revenue goes into fund-raising activities to maintain the salaries of its 75 person Board of Directors and CEO's salary of ~$1,000,000 per annum, and its new headquarters which cost $15,000,000 dollars. The result of these fear tactics; the latest shown by FactCheck.org (a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics) being... http://www.factcheck.org/...a_targets_obama.html which only stimulates more errant stupid ass laws (like the AWB which "kinda" shoots the same caliber round as a deer hunting rifle). Their mission statement is to educate, yet they do not take the time or energy to educate those legislators on the other side of the aisle on just how stupid these laws are by using logic, when the convenience of fear to their own membership is easier and generates more revenue. And that right there is why I sent them them a nice little snail mail telling them they could drop me from their membership roles and stop deluging me with junk mail. I think I also mentioned in the letter that they could all collectively perform self buggerry until they returned to supporting the vast majority of politicians and not just those on the fringe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #162 December 24, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is it that none of you are willing to use that tool for the purpose you were given the right for? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are four boxes that guarantee our freedom: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box" (attribution unknown) The answer to your question is - it's not time to use the fourth box, yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- or the purpose of the amendmend is no longer valid and therefore the amendmend should really no longer be valid. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That would be the time you'd see the fourth box used. Interesting comment. So, when do the restrictions become severe enough that you would be willing to start killing people over it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 22 #163 December 24, 2008 Hi rush, Loophole, HE2xL it's about a circus!! Dogs, ponies, clowns, fireworks, highwire and G-U-N-S!!!! yakyakyakyak!! Got guns?SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #164 December 24, 2008 QuoteThis is lamer semantics than usual. You expected different from him? When he can't answer, he avoids the question with some top notch tap dancing. Lame, but totally predictable from him."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #165 December 24, 2008 QuoteWow, that's all I gotta do for a car? So I can just buy the car and do a bill of sale and take the title and drive around all I want. I learned something new. No, but you can BUY one without any paperwork. To drive it would be like to CARRY a gun. But you can BUY cars all day long without govt involvement. QuoteI did say that... just in the section on the Hughes Amendment - fault me for not taking it back to the NFA, but the form was acknowledged. And you ignored that the Hughes Amendment banned a type of weapon from civilians against the 2nd and the SC take in US v Miller. That's where you failed... QuoteYou do realize that has to do with Market demand the the selling of fear. No, it is clear you did not read anything about the Hughes Amendment. My last purchase cost 3 grand more than it should since of it, not Obama. Really, please go read the Hughes Amendment this time...Pay close attention that it's sole purpose was to ban a type of weapon from civilians....Then try to claim the Govt is OK with civilians being armed....Then for fun, go look at the 1994 AWB. QuoteCause the NRA sent out a flyer saying the big bad Obama was going to take away our guns and stated quotes he had made which for the most part were untrue. And many that were...Such as his support of handgun bans. Some of his positions Obama's voting record and statements are quite clear. From his own website: Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. That by the very nature means taking away a right we currently have. FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. "I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry"--Obama * Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998 The Post quotes Obama out of context, claiming that he only wanted to tax “certain types” of guns in 1999. But the full sentence in the 1999 article reads, “Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] -- weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” Chinta Strausberg, Obama unveils federal gun bill, Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999, at 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 13, 2003, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee for a bill that would have enacted a much broader gun ban. (The vote tally sheet is available at http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf). The bill under debate that day, SB 1195 (available at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/93/...300SB1195lv.pdf), would have made it illegal to “knowingly manufacture, deliver, or possess” a “semiautomatic assault weapon.” The bill defined a “semiautomatic assault weapon” to include “any firearm having a caliber of 50 [sic] or greater.” See SB 1195, page 2, line 10 (emphasis added). Under this bill, a firearm did not actually have to be semi-automatic to be a “semiautomatic assault weapon.” Shotguns 28-gauge or larger (by far the majority of shotguns owned in the United States) are all “.50-caliber or greater.” See National Rifle Ass’n, Firearms Fact Book 183 (3d ed. 1989). SB 1195 did exclude any firearm that “is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action” and “any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.” SB 1195 p.3, lines 12-23. However, the bill did not exclude firearms with hinge or similar actions, such as single-shot or double-barreled shotguns used by millions of hunters. Anyone who possessed one of these firearms in Illinois 90 days after the effective date would have had to “destroy the weapon or device, render it permanently inoperable, relinquish it to a law enforcement agency, or remove it from the state.” SB 1195, p. 5, line 33. Anyone who still possessed a banned gun would have been subject to a felony sentence. SB 1195, p. 5, line 15. This “seizure and surrender” provision was much more severe than the former federal “assault weapons” ban, which had a “grandfather clause” to allow current lawful owners to keep their guns. See 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) (repealed). So Obama voted that you would have to surrender you weapons or you would be considered a felon. I put the references so you can look them up yourself. Try to do a better job than you did with the Hughes Amendment. QuoteI gots no problem with any gun being registered from cradle to grave by each owner. We have to do it for Class II and III, why not Class I? #1. There is no "title III" You are confusing "class III DEALERS" who are allowed to sell TITLE II weapons. #2. Registration has lead to confiscation. You however seem to be fine with confiscation....That is why you have no problem. QuoteSome gun shows prohibit individual sales.. well, let me re-phrase that.. some shows require all weapon transfers be done thru an FFL (for which the FFL charges like $15.00 because the weapon is technically being re-entered into the system thru his/her license). The gun is not being "re-entered" into anything. When you call NICS it does not ask for a serial number. It asks, "Handgun, Longgun, Other". There is a yellow sheet done, but the dealer keeps that in a file. He sends it nowhere. You keep proving you have no clue how the process actually works."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #166 December 24, 2008 QuoteThen why haven't you taken up arms and used your fire arms to fight for the rights granted in the 2nd amendmend? Isn't that exactly what that 2nd amendmend was created for? Maybe *I* don't see anything so bad right now as to sacrifice my life over it? I assume you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Ever use it? If not, then why not just throw it out and never replace it? See, I support the second because it is a tool that can be used in the event that I feel it is needed. Only *I* can make the call when *I* feel it is needed. QuoteThose pro gun always claim that a fire arm is just a tool. What else could it be? It is not alive, it does not have feeling, and it does not harbor intent. QuoteAnd, since nobody is willing to do that, doesn't it logically flow that either the restrictions aren't that severe (maybe not even severe enough) or the purpose of the amendmend is no longer valid and therefore the amendmend should really no longer be valid. That would be like me telling you to use your fire extinguisher to blow out your birthday candles and if you don't, then claim you don't need a fire extinguisher since you are not willing to use it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #167 December 24, 2008 Quote Quote This is lamer semantics than usual. You expected different from him? When he can't answer, he avoids the question with some top notch tap dancing. Lame, but totally predictable from him. Not my fault if he doesn't understand the meaning of "original". Just like you don't understand the meaning of "context". When you make an error, just blame it on "semantics", that's the ticket.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #168 December 24, 2008 QuoteNot my fault if he doesn't understand the meaning of "original". Just like you don't understand the meaning of "context". When you make an error, just blame it on "semantics", that's the ticket That is because your only argument is semantics. You will never just answer a simple question for fear of looking silly. Or maybe you just like the exercise you get from all the tap dancing? You do that a lot, so you must like it. In person, you are a much more reasonable person....I think your whole reason to be on here is to troll. It is like Dr. Kallend and Mr Hyde."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #169 December 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteNot my fault if he doesn't understand the meaning of "original". Just like you don't understand the meaning of "context". When you make an error, just blame it on "semantics", that's the ticket That is because your only argument is semantics. You will never just answer a simple question for fear of looking silly. . Words have accepted meanings. If you want to use your own definitions instead, don't expect the rest of us to follow along. The BoR was NOT in the original Constitution as ratified, and that is FACT.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #170 December 24, 2008 Quote The BoR was NOT in the original Constitution as ratified, and that is FACT. sort of. As discussed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #171 December 24, 2008 Quote Quote The BoR was NOT in the original Constitution as ratified, and that is FACT. sort of. As discussed. Was or was not - there is no 'sort of' (Yoda). You can discuss it until you turn blue. At the date of implementation of the Constitution, the BoR had NOT been passed by Congress nor ratified by the states. On March 4, 1789, the US government began operating under the Constitution. Madison proposed his Bill of Rights to Congress on June 8, 1789. June 8 1789 is AFTER March 4 1789.The Bill of Rights was not finally ratified until December 15, 1791, over 2 years after the Constitution had gone into effect. Don't they teach civics any more?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #172 December 25, 2008 this isn't physics. The value of E is a constant. But the world of history has a bit more subtlety. Bottom line - the Constitution doesn't get ratified without the BoR. And that is a FACT, as you like to say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #173 December 25, 2008 QuoteThis happens all the time. This is how loopholes happen. That IS the definition of a loophole. Loophole = unintended Exception = intended Again, can anyone prove that this was an unintended consequence--that no legislators voting for the original law actually intended it to be enacted as written? The thing that is a "logical impossibility" here is that experienced legislators did not actually read and understand the bill they were voting on. They _knew_ what was in it when they voted for it. How the heck is that a "loophole"?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #174 December 25, 2008 Quotethis isn't physics. The value of E is a constant. But the world of history has a bit more subtlety. Bottom line - the Constitution doesn't get ratified without the BoR. And that is a FACT, as you like to say. But the Constitution WAS ratified, and put into operation, Several months BEFORE the BoR was even presented to Congress and years before it was ratified. Dates already provided. Sorry, you are not entitled to your own version of history, even at Christmas.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #175 December 25, 2008 Quote Sorry, you are not entitled to your own version of history, even at Christmas. Fortunately I'm my own Santa, and he takes care of #1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
