Obama will take away your guns!

[Bug]

When you get angry, he wins.

That is the Republican way.

i thought that was just true for this guy?

Isn't that Carl Rove?

 

[billcoe]

Could be bug, hard to see under the hood, could be James Carville.

[akhalteke]

i thought it was chris rock!

 

hey, this conversation would have a lot more clarity if bill and the other so-regretably-labeled "gun-nuts" would answer the basic question: what weapons (if any) are you willing to allow the state to ban/restrict? surely you can understand why even non-liberals can't accept "none" right?

 

The status quo--as of today--is just fine with me. You OK with that? Which guns legal today do you think should be banned?

 

how about all guns legal today have to be registered?

 

Nope. What would the point of that be?

 

why not? where's the harm?

 

Check Germany in the 30's.

[joblo7]

When you get angry, he wins.

That is the Republican way.

i thought that was just true for this guy?

Isn't that Carl Rove?

some rothschild?

[rbw1966]

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject.

shouldn't the fact that you're assuming he doesn't know this disqualify you too?

 

Since we were talking about "the status quo", no. Reading comprehension, Ivan. Try to follow along.

 

Gun shows and private sales. No background check, no waiting period.

 

The "status quo" is flawed.

[rob]

Fairweather, do you support simple background checks to verify that gun purchasers are not felons or mental patients?

 

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject. When you buy a firearm you are subject to an automatic FBI background check and, unless you have a CWP, there is a 3 to 5 day wait. The check does not include the serial number of the weapon and the record of the check is supposedly purged after 12 or 18 months. If the states can't keep track of mental patients then something certainly needs to be done about that. I can't think of anyone who wants mental patients with guns. How would registering guns solve this problem?

 

 

Really? Hmm, last time I checked I could purchase a firearms without any background check or waiting period -- from a friendly private seller! Hell, if I was a felon or a mental patient, a firearm is as close as the nearest classifieds ad. Look what I can buy here!

 

For Sale by Private Party: Beautiful Chinese Norinco SKS 7.62X39 Rifle: 30 round External mag, 10 Round Internal mag, Sling, Spike bayonet, Original Ammo Bandolier, Cleaning kit, 25 fast clips and 300+ rounds of 7.62X39 ammo. This rifle is in Perfect Condition, very accurate and ready to Hunt or Home Defense. $485

 

No background checks needed! Felons and mental patients welcome! And it's even got a bayonet, for after you blow through the 300+ rounds of ammo (included).

 

But, I'm glad to hear that you support legislation to close this loophole. It's a little surprising, since you crazy gun fuckers have usually fought to the death for the right to sell your guns privately to felons and mental patients.

[ivan]

i like it when rob gets angry

 

"i can FEEL it!"

[tvashtarkatena]

Fairweather, do you support simple background checks to verify that gun purchasers are not felons or mental patients?

 

The fact that you don't know these safeguards are already in place disqualifies you from further commentary on this subject. When you buy a firearm you are subject to an automatic FBI background check and, unless you have a CWP, there is a 3 to 5 day wait. The check does not include the serial number of the weapon and the record of the check is supposedly purged after 12 or 18 months. If the states can't keep track of mental patients then something certainly needs to be done about that. I can't think of anyone who wants mental patients with guns. How would registering guns solve this problem?

 

 

Really? Hmm, last time I checked I could purchase a firearms without any background check or waiting period -- from a friendly private seller! Hell, if I was a felon or a mental patient, a firearm is as close as the nearest classifieds ad. Look what I can buy here!

 

For Sale by Private Party: Beautiful Chinese Norinco SKS 7.62X39 Rifle: 30 round External mag, 10 Round Internal mag, Sling, Spike bayonet, Original Ammo Bandolier, Cleaning kit, 25 fast clips and 300+ rounds of 7.62X39 ammo. This rifle is in Perfect Condition, very accurate and ready to Hunt or Home Defense. $485

 

No background checks needed! Felons and mental patients welcome! And it's even got a bayonet, for after you blow through the 300+ rounds of ammo (included).

 

But, I'm glad to hear that you support legislation to close this loophole. It's a little surprising, since you crazy gun fuckers have usually fought to the death for the right to sell your guns privately to felons and mental patients.

 

Way to give 'im wood, buddy.

[ivan]

was spending some time today at www.vote-smart.org on an activity w/ my seniors and encountered this relevant nugget from michael delavar, the republican opposing bryan baird for congress is the 3rd district - this comes from their "political courage test" which is very interesting and goddamit it'd be nice if all the candidates for all races would fill the damn things out

 

anyhow, on the part of the test related to guns, he votes to get rid of ALL restrictions on weapons, and wrote this nice little note:

 

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It pre-dates the Constitution and is recognized by the Second Amendment, not granted by it. It has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with the God-given right to self defense. It is also a safeguard against tyranny.

[billcoe]

Thanks Ivan. We're still waiting for the interpretation of the rules concerning the internet from the Magna Carta as well. We'll update you on that when it gets in. I put this point on another thread, it should have been on here.

 

.... No small coinkidink that Secretary of State Condoleza Rice took the Chevron board of directors place vacated by former Reagan Sec of state George Schultz? Furthermore, notably, the Taliban had denied Chevron and a consortium to install a pipeline across a corner of Asscrackistan?

 

Guess what pipeline got put in immediately after the US attack has (semi) secured that country?

 

No blood for oil my ass. Here's some links to get you up to speed on that.

 

Link

 

Link

 

Edited to add a pic as a picture is worth a 1000 words:-)

 

Next, should we discuss Saddam trying to denote oil for Euros and not dollars: GASP?

that looks photoshopped. Condi was on the Chevron BOD though.

 

Here's the ship before the name change.

 

Edited to add a better pic. Don't think I'm going all Al Gore here either. Gore was worse that any of these folks, his largest holding to this day is an oil company which his traitorous father, Al Gore Senior -may he rot in hell- SPIT- got because he sold his ass to a Soviet Spy named Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum.

 

Bold new world my ass. And some of you somabitches want to de arm the only honest people in this fucked up equation, plain US citizens. Lets give the greedy power hungry politician more power and take it away from the people. Sure. That makes sense: NOT!

 

 

 

Maybe it won't matter, but you don't know that it will or won't.

 

Like to add that a lot of the bullshit were in wouldn't have bene a big issue has some of these jackals exercised common sense. Here's one appropo. Bush announces we will be non-dependant on forigon oil in the future (YEAHHH!). He announces a 1 billion dollar federal initiative to jumpstart hydrogyn fuel cells (YEAHHH! fuel cells).

 

Not ONE word about CONSERVATION. Which would cost nothing and be implemented immediately. Why is that? (Leave you to ponder it for yourself, I can't supply the answer as it defies common sense).

 

We do need change. Bushes approval rating is 14% and even his supporters see stuff like this oil thing/Afganistan-Iraq invasion, the lies they got caught in to give them permission to attack (remember Colin Powell, Ambassador to Niger Wilson saying that the yellow cake was a make believe document and the administration then outing of his wife Valerie Palame as a CIA agent in retaliation and Scooter Libby, Cheneys assistant, going to jail for lying about it)? They see bullshit like that and go crazy.

 

I'll hold my breath and cross my fingers that Obama can pull this one off, but I expect otherwise based strictly on his past experiences as I detailed elsewhere.

 

Bottom line, to de-arm the only honest people in this equation (YOU my brothers) and change a system that has been working seems insane to me. Don't give more power to power crazy people.

[ivan]

no weapon rights in the magna carta regretably, but it does talk a great deal about scutage!

[Hugh Conway]

no weapon rights in the magna carta regretably, but it does talk a great deal about scutage!

 

I like the antisemitism:

10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

 

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

[ivan]

remember the meaning of life, from "the meaning of life?"

[billcoe]

 

I like the antisemitism:

 

I don't see those words as anti-semetic, although anti-semitism was common then. That's your interpretation of a document made in different times. Jews were the only money lenders at that time, as the Bible forbade usurey. Most of the wars use to be financed by the Kings through borrowing from Jews: later that evolved and grew into banks and institutions...the Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc etc all started this way and it was a very viable way to make a living in a society that often stratified and restricted Jews from selling other things to the public at large.

 

I sense that this thread just took a U-turn and is about to head another direction:-)

______________________________________________________________

 

How about we discuss the Weimar republic, one of the truest and more balanced democratic constitutions in the world, and how that devolved into a handful of Jews who chose not to be rounded up and gassed and they found a few armaments which resulted in them holding off the Wehrmacht in the Warsaw Ghetto? That could never happen here, we're better than that....right?

 

Sure.

 

It's like creeping incrementalism or death by a thousand cuts....little bit here, little bit there, pretty soon they got ya trapped in the sewer running for your life.

[builder206]

you crazy gun fuckers have usually fought to the death for the right to sell your guns privately to felons and mental patients.

 

Dude, dial it back a notch willya? You are painting with too broad a brush. No one supports that and you know it.

[Bug]

Obama is a Jew!

[Hugh Conway]

 

I like the antisemitism:

 

I don't see those words as anti-semetic, although anti-semitism was common then. That's your interpretation of a document made in different times. Jews were the only money lenders at that time, as the Bible forbade usurey. Most of the wars use to be financed by the Kings through borrowing from Jews: later that evolved and grew into banks and institutions...the Rothschilds, Warburgs, etc etc all started this way and it was a very viable way to make a living in a society that often stratified and restricted Jews from selling other things to the public at large.

 

I sense that this thread just took a U-turn and is about to head another direction:-)

______________________________________________________________

 

How about we discuss the Weimar republic, one of the truest and more balanced democratic constitutions in the world, and how that devolved into a handful of Jews who chose not to be rounded up and gassed and they found a few armaments which resulted in them holding off the Wehrmacht in the Warsaw Ghetto? That could never happen here, we're better than that....right?

 

Sure.

 

It's like creeping incrementalism or death by a thousand cuts....little bit here, little bit there, pretty soon they got ya trapped in the sewer running for your life.

 

 

All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

 

In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions

[ivan]

No one supports that and you know it.

if you don't support felons and isane folks getting guns, then you necessarily can't support the status quo, which allows it

[prole]

Gun owners should start donating weapons and ammo to Civil War reenactors.

[akhalteke]

No one supports that and you know it.

if you don't support felons and isane folks getting guns, then you necessarily can't support the status quo, which allows it

 

I have several dz. guns. I have never purchased one without having a background check. This includes stores, private party, gun shows, ect. I suppose some guy selling guns out of the back of his van doesn't do background checks, but I haven't ever seen this happen. I am not really for guys selling guns out of the back of their vans and at least here, it is illegal.

[akhalteke]

Gun owners should start donating weapons and ammo to Civil War reenactors.

 

Yeah, they could really use my M-4 w/ an illuminated reticle, pistol grips and pressure switch tac light.

[prole]

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

[rob]

No one supports that and you know it.

if you don't support felons and isane folks getting guns, then you necessarily can't support the status quo, which allows it

 

I have several dz. guns. I have never purchased one without having a background check. This includes stores, private party, gun shows, ect. I suppose some guy selling guns out of the back of his van doesn't do background checks, but I haven't ever seen this happen. I am not really for guys selling guns out of the back of their vans and at least here, it is illegal.

 

What state do you live in? Only a few require background checks for private-party sales. Federal law allows private sales by individuals who are "not engaged in the business" of selling firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales.

 

Do you support modfying FEDERAL law to require background checks for ANY gun purchases, between ANY parties? It sounds like you do, but the NRA and gun-lobby has been staunchly opposed to this for some reason.

 

It's legal everywhere I've been. And I've bought AND sold guns this way. I own firearms, and actually, now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever received a background check for any of them -- they were all purchased privately from classified ads. I have sold several guns to a collecter, and there was no background check involved there, either.

Edited October 29, 2008 by rob

[rbw1966]

I also own guns and have never had a background check.

[builder206]

I too have bought and sold weapons privately, but I have never sold to somone I didn't know and trust. I would never sell to a stranger. I wouldn't want a crime on my conscience. If I need to unload a weapon for cash I take it to a gun store and take the hit on price.

 

Yes, federal law allows private sales. This is not the same thing as saying that “gun fuckers” support the right to sell to felons and mental patients.

 

I was at a gun show a couple Saturdays ago. A buyer settled on a small auto pistol but changed his mind when the seller pulled out the background check paperwork. After he left the table I suggested the seller call security and let them know about the exchange. Persons ineligible to posses a firearm commit a crime merely by trying to acquire a gun. In other words, if a background check comes up “no-buy,” the story doesn’t end there; the applicant has now committed a crime.

 

The seller was a big believer in personal freedom and highly offended that I thought a guy who did nothing wrong should be reported. Neither the seller nor I could know if the would-be buyer is ineligible to posses a gun so technically he was right, the guy may have done nothing wrong but he sure was quick to change his mind and walk away when the background check paperwork came out. Kind of creeped me out.