New gun bill introduced

[The Rabbi]

Straight up tyranny, just like Reagan was for

"I think there has to be some control. But I thought that in California we had a system that probably was the best. I have never felt that we should, for the law-abiding citizens, take the gun away from them and make it impossible to have one. I think the wrong people will always find a way to get one. But what we had was -- even if today when I go back to California, if I want a gun and go in a store to buy a gun, I have to give them the money, but I have to wait a week, no matter who I am. I have to wait a week and come back then to get the gun, because in that week, my name is presented to investigative element there in the State that checks to make sure that I have no criminal record, that I have no record of mental problems or anything of the kind. Then, and only then, can you pick up the gun and take it with you."
-- the Gipper

That's why Reagan signed this into law
Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986
Firearmslaw.info

Banned machine guns!? Didn't he know about the THIRD amendment?

He did not ban machine guns.

Geezus, the ignorance here is palpable.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is where you and I part ways.
'Rights' are paramount. Common sense is superior to all else.
Read this ......Just because one may do something does not mean they should.

I will explain....I once had a neighbor from hell.
I called the sheriff's dept. In our discussion he said, "It's shame we don't have asshole laws. If we did I'd take your neighbor to jail right now"..
Just because we have the right to act like an asshole does not mean we should.
My reasoning here is, just because we have the right to privately purchase a firearm outside of the normal retailer-customer relationship, (which is heavily regulated) with no checks or balances, does not mean we should.
Should your plan be implemented, the government would be involved to the extent that the background check just may be less of a hassle.
As I stated earlier, this is not going away. So the logical thing to do would be to give something to shut them up.
Otherwise this could get worse. Remember, there were just enough people worried about their free shit plus flaming libs to go along with the notion of having Obama as president for another 4 years. Don't think for a second these anti gun wackos could not gin up just enough support for more stringent anti weapon measures. Look at what happened in New York.

Yet you earlier said you wanted to throw the anti gun nutters a bone. but disagree with my suggestion?
That duck don't fly.
I wasn't giving them anything nor should you.
If the admin of all gun shows would restrict private sales at gun show's it's not restricting anyone rights. And it would most assuredly keep the government out of the issue
They already have rules that you can't take a loaded firearm inside the building of a gun show.

I understand. You must realize this is not about rights. This is politics.
Politically, this is not going away. Better to offer a slice of the bread than have to surrender the whole loaf.
I have complete confidence, the libs are after our weapons.
It is better to hold our collective noses than watch them scheme away our rights.

Give an inch, they take a mile.
There can be no compromise on constitutional rights. It isn't our constitution to compromise away but a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I made an offer, and that's all I am willing too give.

Tell me. What is it that you see as a problem with simply having a private gun show sale at the Metrolina Expo, being held to the same standard as say going to Hyatt Gun Shop....I know you have heard of that store.
I just don't see the difference.
Notwithstanding the private property thing and the other issues mentioned by you.
I will be clear. This is not restriction. This is simply about holding gun shows to the same standard as a retailer. That a background check is to be done before the purchase can be completed.

Gun shows are held too the same standards as gun stores are.

Ok. So other than the background check, what else is there to the 'gun show loophole'?

 

[clevergirl]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY]Gun Control explained - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yet you earlier said you wanted to throw the anti gun nutters a bone. but disagree with my suggestion?
That duck don't fly.
I wasn't giving them anything nor should you.
If the admin of all gun shows would restrict private sales at gun show's it's not restricting anyone rights. And it would most assuredly keep the government out of the issue
They already have rules that you can't take a loaded firearm inside the building of a gun show.

I understand. You must realize this is not about rights. This is politics.
Politically, this is not going away. Better to offer a slice of the bread than have to surrender the whole loaf.
I have complete confidence, the libs are after our weapons.
It is better to hold our collective noses than watch them scheme away our rights.

Give an inch, they take a mile.
There can be no compromise on constitutional rights. It isn't our constitution to compromise away but a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Gun control nutters are using the Hegelian dialectic process, two steps forward on an issue that will face stiff resistance one of those steps will be so ridiculous that they will surrender that position yet still moving forward because we gave into what seem sensible at the time.
We need to knock their agenda back past the NFA 1939 process.
Fuck'em I'm not giving them anything else.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yet you earlier said you wanted to throw the anti gun nutters a bone. but disagree with my suggestion?
That duck don't fly.
I wasn't giving them anything nor should you.
If the admin of all gun shows would restrict private sales at gun show's it's not restricting anyone rights. And it would most assuredly keep the government out of the issue
They already have rules that you can't take a loaded firearm inside the building of a gun show.

I understand. You must realize this is not about rights. This is politics.
Politically, this is not going away. Better to offer a slice of the bread than have to surrender the whole loaf.
I have complete confidence, the libs are after our weapons.
It is better to hold our collective noses than watch them scheme away our rights.

Give an inch, they take a mile.
There can be no compromise on constitutional rights. It isn't our constitution to compromise away but a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Is the requirement of a background check unConstitutional?
I am looking at the larger issue.
If these anti gun nuts get their agenda rolling, we could see for example as proposed in California, a special tax on ammunition. Or a ban on sales of ammo over the internet. A requirement that some kind of serial number be stamped on every round mfgd in the US, this would drive up the cost of manufacture, lengthen the time it takes for the product to get to the marketplace. Two things. The increased lag time would create artificial shortages. And Two, the added cost would be passed along to the consumer.
These are just some of the ideas I have heard/read from the anti gun people.
My thinking is if they don't get something, they will go all in on things we as law abiding citizens are going to dislike very much.
In other words, throw them a piece of bread so they don't go for the entire loaf.
Once these people latch onto an idea and they get nothing, they won't stop.
Trust me. I am all too familiar with the liberal tactic of incrementally forcing their agenda upon us.

 

[The Rabbi]

I understand. You must realize this is not about rights. This is politics.
Politically, this is not going away. Better to offer a slice of the bread than have to surrender the whole loaf.
I have complete confidence, the libs are after our weapons.
It is better to hold our collective noses than watch them scheme away our rights.

Give an inch, they take a mile.
There can be no compromise on constitutional rights. It isn't our constitution to compromise away but a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Is the requirement of a background check unConstitutional?
I am looking at the larger issue.
If these anti gun nuts get their agenda rolling, we could see for example as proposed in California, a special tax on ammunition. Or a ban on sales of ammo over the internet. A requirement that some kind of serial number be stamped on every round mfgd in the US, this would drive up the cost of manufacture, lengthen the time it takes for the product to get to the marketplace. Two things. The increased lag time would create artificial shortages. And Two, the added cost would be passed along to the consumer.
These are just some of the ideas I have heard/read from the anti gun people.
My thinking is if they don't get something, they will go all in on things we as law abiding citizens are going to dislike very much.
In other words, throw them a piece of bread so they don't go for the entire loaf.
Once these people latch onto an idea and they get nothing, they won't stop.
Trust me. I am all too familiar with the liberal tactic of incrementally forcing their agenda upon us.

Yes, the requirement would be unconstitutional. Congress already regulates interstate commerce in guns through the GCA of 1968 and Brady Bill. Current proposals seek to regulate intrastate commerce. And the fedgov has no power to do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand. You must realize this is not about rights. This is politics.
Politically, this is not going away. Better to offer a slice of the bread than have to surrender the whole loaf.
I have complete confidence, the libs are after our weapons.
It is better to hold our collective noses than watch them scheme away our rights.

Give an inch, they take a mile.
There can be no compromise on constitutional rights. It isn't our constitution to compromise away but a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Gun control nutters are using the Hegelian dialectic process, two steps forward on an issue that will face stiff resistance one of those steps will be so ridiculous that they will surrender that position yet still moving forward because we gave into what seem sensible at the time.
We need to knock their agenda back past the NFA 1939 process.
Fuck'em I'm not giving them anything else.

Please reference where you got the idea. Lenin: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: R. A Few Words On Dialectics. Two Revolutions

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Give an inch, they take a mile.
There can be no compromise on constitutional rights. It isn't our constitution to compromise away but a legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Gun control nutters are using the Hegelian dialectic process, two steps forward on an issue that will face stiff resistance one of those steps will be so ridiculous that they will surrender that position yet still moving forward because we gave into what seem sensible at the time.
We need to knock their agenda back past the NFA 1939 process.
Fuck'em I'm not giving them anything else.

Please reference where you got the idea. Lenin: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: R. A Few Words On Dialectics. Two Revolutions

Mentioning the process is not patronizing as you first suggest and report for.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You make no sense, bigrebnc. You used wordage the concept of which comes directly from another source. I have every right to ask you to cite it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You make no sense, bigrebnc. You used wordage the concept of which comes directly from an another source. I have every right to ask you to cite it.

Go pound sand son I'm much smart than you I know more than you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You make no sense, bigrebnc. You used wordage the concept of which comes directly from an another source. I have every right to ask you to cite it.

Go pound sand son I'm much smart than you I know more than you.

mebbe so, tonto, but I have the right to ask for your cites when your words are very close to a charge of plagiarism.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You make no sense, bigrebnc. You used wordage the concept of which comes directly from an another source. I have every right to ask you to cite it.

Go pound sand son I'm much smart than you I know more than you.

mebbe so, tonto, but I have the right to ask for your cites when your words are very close to a charge of plagiarism.

I owe you nothing the concept is their do your own research.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Go pound sand son I'm much smart than you I know more than you.

mebbe so, tonto, but I have the right to ask for your cites when your words are very close to a charge of plagiarism.

I owe you nothing the concept is their do your own research.

Common courtesy and respect to scholarship requires you to publish a citation when the concept is not yours. The word also is plagiarizing not patronizing. If you had done this in a classroom setting, the instructor would have snatched you up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

mebbe so, tonto, but I have the right to ask for your cites when your words are very close to a charge of plagiarism.

I owe you nothing the concept is their do your own research.

Common courtesy and respect to scholarship requires you to publish a citation when the concept is not yours. The word also is plagiarizing not patronizing. If you had done this in a classroom setting, the instructor would have snatched you up.

I owe you nothing, and I don't respect you All I can say is if you think I somehow plagerize something report it.

OH and by the way it's require's not requires.

 

[PaulS1950]

I would like to see a background check to vote.
Felons aren't supposed to vote - how do you know that they aren't? Wouldn't you be willing to have a background check on voters?
If we did that then we could use our voter's registration to buy guns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I owe you nothing the concept is their do your own research.

Common courtesy and respect to scholarship requires you to publish a citation when the concept is not yours. The word also is plagiarizing not patronizing. If you had done this in a classroom setting, the instructor would have snatched you up.

I owe you nothing, and I don't respect you All I can say is if you think I somehow plagerize something report it.

OH and by the way it's require's not requires.

The admin is aware of it. That you do not respect me is your problem, not mine. You owe the board a common respect for how to argue, and that means when you use others' thoughts and concepts that are not common knowledge, you are to cite it.

OH study your grammar book.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Common courtesy and respect to scholarship requires you to publish a citation when the concept is not yours. The word also is plagiarizing not patronizing. If you had done this in a classroom setting, the instructor would have snatched you up.

I owe you nothing, and I don't respect you All I can say is if you think I somehow plagerize something report it.

OH and by the way it's require's not requires.

The admin is aware of it. That you do not respect me is your problem, not mine. You owe the board a common respect for how to argue, and that means when you use others' thoughts and concepts that are not common knowledge, you are to cite it.

OH study your grammar book.

If your claim is true report it
If not move along.

 

[PaulS1950]

Maybe we can get back to the topic of the newly introduced law?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I owe you nothing, and I don't respect you All I can say is if you think I somehow plagerize something report it.

OH and by the way it's require's not requires.

The admin is aware of it. That you do not respect me is your problem, not mine. You owe the board a common respect for how to argue, and that means when you use others' thoughts and concepts that are not common knowledge, you are to cite it.

OH study your grammar book.

If your claim is true report it
If not move along.

It is true, the issue has been notified, and you have been corrected. Move along with your discussion. By the by, do you know who was Hegel?