kallend 2,117 #101 December 16, 2009 So, basically you are saying that the data do NOT support RonD's claim.... 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
kallend 2,117 #102 December 16, 2009 Quote Can you grab two beers also? A Guinness, a Newcastle, and a Boddingtons please. Take it up with the OP and his source.... 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
billvon 3,090 #103 January 3, 2010 >>Restrictions have been loosened in 24 states >Put that in your pipe and smoke it, gun-o-phobes. Frank Luntz, a republican pollster, recently polled a bunch of gun owners, about half of whom were NRA members. Results: 69% of NRA members supported closing the gun-show loophole 82% favored banning gun purchases for suspects on terrorist watch lists 69% want gun trace information shared with police http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf Looks like the gun nuts just took two in the chest from the NRA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #104 January 3, 2010 Quote>>Restrictions have been loosened in 24 states >Put that in your pipe and smoke it, gun-o-phobes. Frank Luntz, a republican pollster, recently polled a bunch of gun owners, about half of whom were NRA members. Results: 69% of NRA members supported closing the gun-show loophole 82% favored banning gun purchases for suspects on terrorist watch lists 69% want gun trace information shared with police http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf Looks like the gun nuts just took two in the chest from the NRA. wow billvon I just read the poll. You have now taken the "Mr. Twister" title back from kallend. Nice job"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #105 January 3, 2010 QuoteLooks like the gun nuts just took two in the chest from the NRA. "Looks" can be deceiving:"This week, anti-gun New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released the findings of a poll conducted by a political consulting firm called "The Word Doctors," whose slogan is "It's not what you say, it's what people hear." Word Doctors' president is a pollster who has been reprimanded by the American Association for Public Opinion Research and censured by the National Council on Public Polls, and who says that the key to polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer..."Full story: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5252 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #106 January 3, 2010 article QuoteThe oft-cited credo that more guns equal more crime is being tested by facts on the ground this year: Even as gun ownership has surged in the US in the past year, violent crime, including murder and robbery, has dropped steeply. QuoteConcurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally Quote“When you’re seeing declines [in violent crime] both in cities like Atlanta, which is in a relatively gun-friendly state, and in places like New York City, where it is essentially impossible for ordinary folks to acquire and carry especially handguns, then it’s not the guns that are driving the [statistics],” Mr. Kennedy says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #107 January 4, 2010 Quote the key to polling is "to ask a question in the way that you get the right answer..."Full story: Like the way you word your frequent "polls" here.... 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 #108 January 5, 2010 Quote>>Restrictions have been loosened in 24 states >Put that in your pipe and smoke it, gun-o-phobes. Frank Luntz, a republican pollster, recently polled a bunch of gun owners, about half of whom were NRA members. Results: 69% of NRA members supported closing the gun-show loophole 82% favored banning gun purchases for suspects on terrorist watch lists 69% want gun trace information shared with police http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf Looks like the gun nuts just took two in the chest from the NRA. The 'gun-show loophole' is a myth - there is NO requirement that a private seller perform any sort of background check, and dealers at the gunshow have to perform the same checks they would in a store sale.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #109 January 5, 2010 >The 'gun-show loophole' is a myth - there is NO requirement that >a private seller perform any sort of background check . . . Correct - and that's the loophole. You can't walk into a gun store and buy certain guns without a background check, or without the purchase being recorded. You can walk into a gun show and buy those guns without that background check, making gun shows (indeed, any venue other than a gun store) a way for felons to easily get guns. And even gun owners want that particular loophole closed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 January 5, 2010 Quote>The 'gun-show loophole' is a myth - there is NO requirement that >a private seller perform any sort of background check . . . Correct - and that's the loophole. You can't walk into a gun store and buy certain guns without a background check, or without the purchase being recorded. You can walk into a gun show and buy those guns without that background check, making gun shows (indeed, any venue other than a gun store) a way for felons to easily get guns. And even gun owners want that particular loophole closed. Private owners != gunstores. Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car trunk loophole'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #111 January 5, 2010 >Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #112 January 5, 2010 Quote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #113 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you.... 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 #114 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you. Private owners do NOT have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. Gunstore owners DO have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. So - show the 'loophole', perfesser.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #115 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you. Private owners do NOT have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. Gunstore owners DO have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. So - show the 'loophole', perfesser. You just described it perfectly.... 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 #116 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you. Private owners do NOT have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. Gunstore owners DO have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. So - show the 'loophole', perfesser. You just described it perfectly. That there's NO loophole? Why yes, I *did* just perfectly describe that there is none.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #117 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you. Private owners do NOT have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. Gunstore owners DO have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. So - show the 'loophole', perfesser. You just described it perfectly. That there's NO loophole? Why yes, I *did* just perfectly describe that there is none. And now you're back to the debating style you learned in 2nd grade. IT ISN'T WORKING, MIKE.... 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 #118 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you. Private owners do NOT have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. Gunstore owners DO have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. So - show the 'loophole', perfesser. You just described it perfectly. That there's NO loophole? Why yes, I *did* just perfectly describe that there is none. And now you're back to the debating style you learned in 2nd grade. IT ISN'T WORKING, MIKE. Neither is YOURS, John. How about you actually REFUTE A FUCKING ARGUMENT, FOR ONCE instead of your usual cheap shots?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #119 January 5, 2010 Quote>The 'gun-show loophole' is a myth - there is NO requirement that >a private seller perform any sort of background check . . . Correct - and that's the loophole. You can't walk into a gun store and buy certain guns without a background check, or without the purchase being recorded. You can walk into a gun show and buy those guns without that background check, making gun shows (indeed, any venue other than a gun store) a way for felons to easily get guns. And even gun owners want that particular loophole closed. That one does not exist in Iowa. If you sell a gun privately the seller is to verify the buyer has an Iowa permit to purchase. As least for hand guns. The same is for dealers. Most dealers require the same permit for long guns but, that is not required by the law"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #120 January 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>Private owners != gunstores. Correct. Private owners != alcohol either. >Maybe you should start petitioning Congress about the 'criminal car >trunk loophole'. No need; even NRA members want this loophole closed. No loophole - there is NO requirement for private owners to do a background check. It is a false argument. Back to your old game of re-defining words to suit your argument. It doesn't work, we're on to you. Private owners do NOT have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. Gunstore owners DO have to do background checks, regardless of the location the gun is sold. So - show the 'loophole', perfesser. He is talking only about private sales. They then "link" private sales to guns shows to create the loop hole. They want background checks for all guns sales period. But linking it to guns shows gives them an opportunity to bash gun owners getting together"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #121 January 6, 2010 QuoteHe is talking only about private sales. They then "link" private sales to guns shows to create the loop hole. They want background checks for all guns sales period. But linking it to guns shows gives them an opportunity to bash gun owners getting together They want more than background checks. They want registration*. Here's how it works: First they close the (nonexistent) "gunshow loophole", requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows. So now all gunshow sales must be done through a FFL'd dealer. No big deal. Just pay an FFL $10 to do the transfer. Next they start squeaking about private sales through newspapers, between friends, etc. It's the "non-gunshow private sale loophole" now. So new legislation is enacted requiring that ALL transfers, even between a mother and daughter, be done through an FFL. No big deal. Just pay an FFL. Next they start screaming that people are selling guns under the table. They decide that the only way to control that is to require federal registration of ALL guns so that they may be tracked. One can easily imagine where that will lead. *And many want confiscation. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #122 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteHe is talking only about private sales. They then "link" private sales to guns shows to create the loop hole. They want background checks for all guns sales period. But linking it to guns shows gives them an opportunity to bash gun owners getting together They want more than background checks. They want registration*. Here's how it works: First they close the (nonexistent) "gunshow loophole", requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows. So now all gunshow sales must be done through a FFL'd dealer. No big deal. Just pay an FFL $10 to do the transfer. Next they start squeaking about private sales through newspapers, between friends, etc. It's the "non-gunshow private sale loophole" now. So new legislation is enacted requiring that ALL transfers, even between a mother and daughter, be done through an FFL. No big deal. Just pay an FFL. Next they start screaming that people are selling guns under the table. They decide that the only way to control that is to require federal registration of ALL guns so that they may be tracked. One can easily imagine where that will lead. *And many want confiscation. Like California did, after Roberti-Roos?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #123 January 6, 2010 Quote They want more than background checks. They want registration*. Here's how it works: First they close the (nonexistent) "gunshow loophole", requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows. So now all gunshow sales must be done through a FFL'd dealer. No big deal. Just pay an FFL $10 to do the transfer. Next they start squeaking about private sales through newspapers, between friends, etc. It's the "non-gunshow private sale loophole" now. So new legislation is enacted requiring that ALL transfers, even between a mother and daughter, be done through an FFL. No big deal. Just pay an FFL. Next they start screaming that people are selling guns under the table. They decide that the only way to control that is to require federal registration of ALL guns so that they may be tracked. One can easily imagine where that will lead. *And many want confiscation. Many states, including CA, have long required all private transfers go through an FFL. We still get to wait 10 days, as well. But that hasn't been a stepping stone to something more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #124 January 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteHe is talking only about private sales. They then "link" private sales to guns shows to create the loop hole. They want background checks for all guns sales period. But linking it to guns shows gives them an opportunity to bash gun owners getting together They want more than background checks. They want registration*. Here's how it works: First they close the (nonexistent) "gunshow loophole", requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows. So now all gunshow sales must be done through a FFL'd dealer. No big deal. Just pay an FFL $10 to do the transfer. Next they start squeaking about private sales through newspapers, between friends, etc. It's the "non-gunshow private sale loophole" now. So new legislation is enacted requiring that ALL transfers, even between a mother and daughter, be done through an FFL. No big deal. Just pay an FFL. Next they start screaming that people are selling guns under the table. They decide that the only way to control that is to require federal registration of ALL guns so that they may be tracked. One can easily imagine where that will lead. *And many want confiscation. Did an acorn fall on your head?... 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
rushmc 23 #125 January 6, 2010 Quote Quote He is talking only about private sales. They then "link" private sales to guns shows to create the loop hole. They want background checks for all guns sales period. But linking it to guns shows gives them an opportunity to bash gun owners getting together They want more than background checks. They want registration*. Here's how it works: First they close the (nonexistent) "gunshow loophole", requiring background checks for private sales at gunshows. So now all gunshow sales must be done through a FFL'd dealer. No big deal. Just pay an FFL $10 to do the transfer. Next they start squeaking about private sales through newspapers, between friends, etc. It's the "non-gunshow private sale loophole" now. So new legislation is enacted requiring that ALL transfers, even between a mother and daughter, be done through an FFL. No big deal. Just pay an FFL. Next they start screaming that people are selling guns under the table. They decide that the only way to control that is to require federal registration of ALL guns so that they may be tracked. One can easily imagine where that will lead. *And many want confiscation. Agreed The loophole is a red fish of some kind"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
