Why I disagree with the NRA

[kallend 2,121]

How about you finally tell us WHY you think its a good thing that convicted felons have easy access to guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Ok, so now you are completely disregarding everything I have posted. Maybe you should go back and re-read my position and suggestions. I suggested the NICS be MODIFIED! That means changed. Changed means it would not work the same as it does now.
The rebuttals you included in your last post go against almosteverything I have suggested.
You have also taken the issue of use on public grounds completely out of context. You cannot drive a car on a public highway (use as it was intended) without a license on the car and one for the operator. There are millions of acres of public ground where you can go and shoot your gun (intended use) wihtout license or registration for either gun or owner.
See, that is why I have issues with the NRA. They accuse the gun banners of being blind to the truth, yet they refuse to budge a fraction of a percentage on their hardcore line of "no compromise!" Maybe if the NRA would push their membership to do voluntary background checks on private sales, even provide them at a nominal cost, it would help. But they don't. They have adopted the attitude that any bit of trouble or expense...even a 10 minute wait for a $5 background check...is just too damn much inconvenience.

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.

[kallend 2,121]

Quote

Ok, so now you are completely disregarding everything I have posted. .

Welcome to debating anything with Mike.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

How about you finally tell us WHY you think its a good thing that convicted felons have easy access to guns.

I don't think that's the issue, Doc.
The whole issue with the NRA and background checks is that there are a lot of gun owners who don't give a shit what the gun is used for after the sale, they don't care who they sell to as long as the sell, the NRA does nothing to encourage these people to care, and the NRA cries like a freakin' spoiled brat when the subject is mentioned of making those checks mandatory for private sales.
I used to believe in the NRA and what they preach, but I have come to realize that some of their ideals are just too radical and not realistic in todays society.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You have also taken the issue of use on public grounds completely out of context. You cannot drive a car on a public highway (use as it was intended) without a license on the car and one for the operator. There are millions of acres of public ground where you can go and shoot your gun (intended use) wihtout license or registration for either gun or owner.

Where is the closest available place for someone in San Francisco?

Yes, there's millions of acres of BLM land. But it ain't nearby where most people actually live. Just give up that comparison already - it doesn't work.

CA is one of many states that requires an FFL to be involved for private transfers. Adds 50-100$ or more typically (min is the ~25$ DROS fee, plus whatever the shop charges). Now, does this sort of fee increase or hamper gun rights? And do you think it encourages people to do it legit, or to skirt the process?

Many of the "common sense", "low hassle" gun control bills are about making it too expensive for people, effectively disarming the poor, and doing nothing to the rich.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

You have also taken the issue of use on public grounds completely out of context. You cannot drive a car on a public highway (use as it was intended) without a license on the car and one for the operator. There are millions of acres of public ground where you can go and shoot your gun (intended use) wihtout license or registration for either gun or owner.

Where is the closest available place for someone in San Francisco?

Yes, there's millions of acres of BLM land. But it ain't nearby where most people actually live. Just give up that comparison already - it doesn't work.

CA is one of many states that requires an FFL to be involved for private transfers. Adds 50-100$ or more typically (min is the ~25$ DROS fee, plus whatever the shop charges). Now, does this sort of fee increase or hamper gun rights? And do you think it encourages people to do it legit, or to skirt the process?

Many of the "common sense", "low hassle" gun control bills are about making it too expensive for people, effectively disarming the poor, and doing nothing to the rich.

Uh, dude, where did you get the idea that location had anything to do with the argument? Nice strawman, though.
California does a lot of stupid stuff, excessive fees like you mentioned are just one. My suggestions included free or low cost checks. There should also not be any transfer tax attached or sales tax charged. I am, and always have been, against sales taxes being placed on any item transfered through private sale whether it is a gun or a car.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

My suggestions included free or low cost checks. There should also not be any transfer tax attached or sales tax charged. I am, and always have been, against sales taxes being placed on any item transfered through private sale whether it is a gun or a car.

Nothing is "free." If checks are done, there are real costs. And the lower the volume of checks, the higher the true cost. Then tack on the deliberate nuisance fee. We're in a state that is seriously considering legalizing pot solely for the tax revenues it may generate. So couple the revenue enhancer types with the asshole gun control types and what do you get? $$$.

And still waiting on where that BLM land is for me.

[billvon 3,090]

>Many of the "common sense", "low hassle" gun control bills are about
>making it too expensive for people, effectively disarming the poor, and
>doing nothing to the rich.

It's the evil fatcat elitists cruelly oppressing the helpless poor! Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Though I am a life member of the NRA

Irrelevant. You dare to question. You must be a self-hater.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences? It's not enough we have laws prohibiting felons from buying guns but do nothing to enforce those laws? You don't want to do a background check on Bubba the Felon when he buys that extra gun you have laying around? Fine. But if he is a felon the I say you should be held partially responsible for what he does with it as well as be charged with aiding in a felony by enabling him to possess a gun.

"And still waiting on where that BLM land is for me."

Once again, whether you have easy access to those lands is irrelevent as to whether or not a license is needed to use a gun on them. Total strawman.

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences?

First, it's not an indulgence to be able to exercise your rights. Poll taxes aren't legal any more either. If it costs $100 to sell a gun legally, then I think the state
AG should also be held responsible for the consequences if someone skips the check.

And second, you're the one that suggested this check be free or low cost, not I. I'm pointing out that yes, these things do cost money and need to get paid for, either directly by the users, or indirectly by the tax base. These are circumstances where one or the other is the more appropriate choice.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

"If it costs $100 to sell a gun legally, then I think the state AG should also be held responsible for the consequences if someone skips the check. "

Where the hell did that statement come from? Talk about getting off track.

"And second, you're the one that suggested this check be free or low cost, not I. "

Yep, I suggested it and you're the one whining about it. "Oh no! They're gonna make me do a background check to sell my gun and it's gonna take five whole minutes and cost me five whole dollars! "
Boo-fucking-hoo

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"And second, you're the one that suggested this check be free or low cost, not I. "

Yep, I suggested it and you're the one whining about it. "Oh no! They're gonna make me do a background check to sell my gun and it's gonna take five whole minutes and cost me five whole dollars! "
Boo-fucking-hoo

Do you have any idea what you're trying to say? You sure as hell have no idea what I'm saying. It's hard to reply to such ramblings.

I pointed out it's unrealistic to expect the government to do this for free right now. In case you missed it, everyone is running a deficit. It's far more likely to work out the way it does in CA, with the cost discouraging people from doing it the proper way.

[pbwing 0]

Quote

It's the evil fatcat elitists cruelly oppressing the helpless poor! Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Oh there you go bringing class into it again!

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

"And second, you're the one that suggested this check be free or low cost, not I. "

Yep, I suggested it and you're the one whining about it. "Oh no! They're gonna make me do a background check to sell my gun and it's gonna take five whole minutes and cost me five whole dollars! "
Boo-fucking-hoo

Do you have any idea what you're trying to say? You sure as hell have no idea what I'm saying. It's hard to reply to such ramblings.

I pointed out it's unrealistic to expect the government to do this for free right now. In case you missed it, everyone is running a deficit. It's far more likely to work out the way it does in CA, with the cost discouraging people from doing it the proper way.

I know what you are trying to say. Nowhere did I say it would be easy. California raping the hell out of gun owners doesn't mean it has to be that way everywhere else.
BTW, I don't hear of any gun owners complaining about tax dollars being used to build public shooting ranges.

Try reading the entire thread before just jumping in. Most of your concerns were addressed early on.

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.

[kallend 2,121]

Quote

Quote

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences?

First, it's not an indulgence to be able to exercise your rights.

Belgian's suggestion will not prevent you from exercising your rights (which, as Scalia noted in Heller, are not unlimited).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How about you finally tell us WHY you think its a good thing that convicted felons have easy access to guns.

You first - how about you FINALLY tell us WHY you think it's a good idea for government to break the law, and WHY you think it's more important to go after 0.7% of guns vs. 80% of guns.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

See, that is why I have issues with the NRA. They accuse the gun banners of being blind to the truth, yet they refuse to budge a fraction of a percentage on their hardcore line of "no compromise!"

So, show us where the gun-control crowd has ever compromised? Why does the compromising always have to come from the pro-gun crowd?

Quote

Maybe if the NRA would push their membership to do voluntary background checks on private sales, even provide them at a nominal cost, it would help. But they don't. They have adopted the attitude that any bit of trouble or expense...even a 10 minute wait for a $5 background check...is just too damn much inconvenience.

Still waiting on those stats once you get over your hyperbole fix. I also refer you back to the fact that it's always the gun owners that have to compromise.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Ok, so now you are completely disregarding everything I have posted. .

Welcome to debating anything with Mike.

At least I tell the TRUTH in my posts - unlike certain physics professors.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences?

First, it's not an indulgence to be able to exercise your rights.

Belgian's suggestion will not prevent you from exercising your rights (which, as Scalia noted in Heller, are not unlimited).

Then the extra expense of a poll tax doesn't prevent you from exercising your right to vote.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,121]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences?

First, it's not an indulgence to be able to exercise your rights.

Belgian's suggestion will not prevent you from exercising your rights (which, as Scalia noted in Heller, are not unlimited).

Then the extra expense of a poll tax doesn't prevent you from exercising your right to vote.

Grow up, Mike.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences?

First, it's not an indulgence to be able to exercise your rights.

Belgian's suggestion will not prevent you from exercising your rights (which, as Scalia noted in Heller, are not unlimited).

Then the extra expense of a poll tax doesn't prevent you from exercising your right to vote.

Grow up, Mike.

You first - make a stupid comment, get one in return.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

See, that is why I have issues with the NRA. They accuse the gun banners of being blind to the truth, yet they refuse to budge a fraction of a percentage on their hardcore line of "no compromise!"

So, show us where the gun-control crowd has ever compromised? Why does the compromising always have to come from the pro-gun crowd?

Quote

Maybe if the NRA would push their membership to do voluntary background checks on private sales, even provide them at a nominal cost, it would help. But they don't. They have adopted the attitude that any bit of trouble or expense...even a 10 minute wait for a $5 background check...is just too damn much inconvenience.

Still waiting on those stats once you get over your hyperbole fix. I also refer you back to the fact that it's always the gun owners that have to compromise.

That is the second time you have asked for stats but not said what stats you want.
Compromise is the big issue. Neither the pro-gun rights people not the anti-gunners want to compromise. It's like two spoiled brats.

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.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you want society to absorb all the costs of your endulgences?

First, it's not an indulgence to be able to exercise your rights.

Belgian's suggestion will not prevent you from exercising your rights (which, as Scalia noted in Heller, are not unlimited).

Then the extra expense of a poll tax doesn't prevent you from exercising your right to vote.

What the hell are you talking about? I said the BC should be free. That's why I said you have disregarded everything I suggested.
I agree with Kallend. Grow up.

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.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What the hell are you talking about? I said the BC should be free. That's why I said you have disregarded everything I suggested.
I agree with Kallend. Grow up.

Since we're discussing growing up, when are YOU going to do so and base your argument on more than wishes and fantasies?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706