Siezing guns is expensive!

[a425couple]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

Interesting situation,
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
---nine California (STOCA1) Justice Department agents assembled
---About 45 minutes later, they came away peacefully with three firearms
---20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms
--- (current) number of agents is 33
--- They seized about 2,000 weapons last year

So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to
get the known guns from criminals & unfit,
And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!

(key words- felon & sieze)

[Frank]

California as a role model?

I'd say laboratory of failed experiments.

[Wayne]

"a425couple" wrote in message news:kno3d...@news6.newsguy.com...

You shouldn't point out such facts to gungrabbers.

What is more likely?
1. They will abandon the program as being non effective.
2. They will add more agents. (screw the current state budget problems)

[Billy]

In article <kno4mm$un0$1...@dont-email.me>,

<http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/california-revenue-idUSL2N0DP2
5Q20130508>
California revenue surges ahead of revised budget plan
=====

As revenues improve, we'll have more money to use to shut down the
cowboys, and Rambos, and get those violent toys out of the communities.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/>

Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>

[benj]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:09:56 -0700, a425couple wrote:

> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-
owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

> So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to get the
> known guns from criminals & unfit,

> And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!

Nah, you don't get it. It's so much easier and safer to take guns from
the law-abiding and sane. Criminals and insane may actually shoot you.

With a 10 year backlog you need to make the job as easy as possible.

[benj]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:56:32 -0700, Billy wrote:

> California revenue surges ahead of revised budget plan =====
>
> As revenues improve, we'll have more money to use to shut down the
> cowboys, and Rambos, and get those violent toys out of the communities.

To a leftard there is always enough other people's money to take rights
away. Especially those rights that represent a "threat" to tyranny.

[Baxter]

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:7iPnt.4635$tp3....@newsfe23.iad...

'Cept "leftard's" are smarter than you and know it's not other peoples
money - it's their own.

[Billy]

In article <7iPnt.4635$tp3....@newsfe23.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

Sorry, you poor little rightard victim, you want to claim a right that I
and the majority of the community at large consider a threat to the
peace. Now how do you think one might arrive at a resolution of such a
conflict in a democracy? Hmmmmmmm?

No, "blast it!" isn't acceptable.

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx>
Guns - Gallup Historical Trends

If you were in a public place such as a restaurant or movie theater,
would you feel more safe -- or less safe -- if you knew concealed
firearms were allowed?

More Less No No
safe safe difference opinion
(vol.)

25% 65% 8% 2%

2004 Nov 19-21

(vol.) = Volunteered response

=========

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/16822/Public-Wary-About-Broad-Concealed-Firea
rm-Privileges.aspx>
June 14, 2005
Public Wary About Broad Concealed Firearm Privileges
Those who favor broadening concealed weapon privileges generally argue
that the weapons give citizens greater means to protect themselves from
violent crime. Opponents typically cite safety concerns, especially if
those weapons were carried in public places where there are crowds
gathered. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll* finds that Americans' views are
more aligned with the opponents' position than the proponents' viewpoint
-- favoring a limited extension of the right to carry concealed firearms
and believing they make the environment less safe for people. Views vary
widely by whether people themselves own guns, as well as by gender.
======

<http://smartgunlaws.org/polling-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/>
Posted on September 9, 2012
Polling on Carrying Concealed Weapons
A 2012 poll of gun owners including NRA members found support for
restrictions related to carrying concealed weapons. Among the poll’s
findings:
• 75% of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be
granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors,
including assault.
• 74% of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to
applicants who have completed gun safety training.
• 68% of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to
applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
• 63% of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to
applicants 21 years of age or older.1
A poll of registered voters conducted in April 2010 found that 57% feel
less safe when they learn that loaded concealed guns may lawfully be
carried in public. Fifty-six percent of registered voters oppose
allowing people to carry concealed guns in public, with 41% strongly
opposing concealed carry.2
A slight majority of Americans 52% oppose laws that authorize the
carrying of concealed weapons.3
Another poll found that nearly 52% of Americans favor authorizing the
carrying of concealed weapons only for persons who demonstrate a special
need to carry a concealed weapon.4
A 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 73% of Americans
disapprove of making it easier for people to legally carry concealed
weapons.5
Americans are more likely to feel less safe rather than more safe if
more people in their community acquire firearms. A study6 reviewing
surveys on public attitudes toward guns in the U.S. found:
• In a 1996 survey, that 59% of respondents would feel less safe as
more people in their community began to carry guns;
• In a 1999 survey, that an overwhelming majority said “No,” in
response to questions regarding whether average citizens should be
allowed to bring their guns into restaurants (88%), college campuses
(94%), sports stadiums (94%), bars (93%), hospitals (91%), or government
buildings (92%).
======


Keep a green tree in your heart and perhaps the singing bird will come.
-- Chinese proverb

A tree is a tree - how many more do you need to look at?
-- Ronald Reagan, California Governor

[Bill Shatzer]

benj wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:09:56 -0700, a425couple wrote:

>>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-

> owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html

>>So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to get the
>>known guns from criminals & unfit,

>>And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!

> Nah, you don't get it. It's so much easier and safer to take guns from
> the law-abiding and sane. Criminals and insane may actually shoot you.

Cops rather regularly insert themselves into situations where folks
might actually shoot them. It's kinda in their job description.

'Sides, with all those NRA types muttering things about "my cold dead
hands", who's to say that criminal-types are the ones more likely to
shoot you?

BTW, someone illegally possessing a firearm is hardly "law-abiding".

peace and justice,

[benj]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:54 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:

> benj wrote:

>> Nah, you don't get it. It's so much easier and safer to take guns from
>> the law-abiding and sane. Criminals and insane may actually shoot you.
>
> Cops rather regularly insert themselves into situations where folks
> might actually shoot them. It's kinda in their job description.

And cops intend to go home at the end of the shift. Which is why so many
grannies end up getting shot. It's shoot first and ask questions later.

> 'Sides, with all those NRA types muttering things about "my cold dead
> hands", who's to say that criminal-types are the ones more likely to
> shoot you?

Yeah, I've heard all that "cold dead hands" crap. I've never seen it. Lot
of talk. These guys usually won't spend $35 to join the NRA or even
bother to vote let alone do real work for candidates. So you think
they'll take on a war with a whole police force? Highly unlikely.

> BTW, someone illegally possessing a firearm is hardly "law-abiding".

By the way, we really weren't talking about police who have to deal with
real criminals, but government "agents" going out to gather guns and how
they'd rather act tough with honest law-abiding gun owners rather than
felons who just MAY take on the whole police force.

> peace and justice,

Where is peace and justice when our own leaders ship thousands of guns to
drug cartels simply to try to make some political point at the cost of
thousands of lives? Anyone arrested for those crimes yet? See?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:juXnt.4422$EM6....@newsfe04.iad...

> On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:54 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>> BTW, someone illegally possessing a firearm is hardly "law-abiding".
>
> By the way, we really weren't talking about police who have to deal with
> real criminals, but government "agents" going out to gather guns and how
> they'd rather act tough with honest law-abiding gun owners rather than
> felons who just MAY take on the whole police force.
>

Those "agents" are armed and wearing bulletproof vests when they knock on
your door. And they only go after lawbreakers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/local/la-me-gun-recovery-20130219

[Billy]

In article <juXnt.4422$EM6....@newsfe04.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

Yeah, add to that the weapons we send to Zionists, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, and Indonesia, and you'd think that the government was working
for the gun manufacturers. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[benj]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:28:33 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> Those "agents" are armed and wearing bulletproof vests when they knock
> on your door. And they only go after lawbreakers.
>
> http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/18/local/la-me-gun-
recovery-20130219

I"m not saying that convicted felons should be owning guns, but there is
a huge political dimension beneath the surface here. And that would be
the push to disarm everyone if only by chipping away. Two salient points
being that the previous ability to have your rights restored if you
showed a changed life (typical of the difference between wild teens and
people who get older and wiser) has been totally removed as a possibility
and another would be that definition of "felony" has been cleverly
dropping. While nobody wants to see violent convicted felons packing heat
when they get out, does some kid smoking a little pot or some homeowner
who cheated on his taxes seem to be someone who should be disarmed and
lose all right to self-defense for life? In some states "felony" has been
defined as any crime for which ANY jail time is served. That means you
might lose your guns for life by spitting on the sidewalk. There is
obviously a political agenda here to disarm as many citizens as possible.
Crime and justice are clearly a secondary issue.

[1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:56:32 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

There is nothing more dangerous than a well-funded fascist. If there
are any freedom-loving Californians left, prepare for the fight of
your lives...

>Remember Rachel Corrie

What's to remember? An also-ran bulldozer wrestler from Moonbat U.

[1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

Fortunately, there are well-tested remedies against tyranny.

[1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 18:13:14 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

>In article <7iPnt.4635$tp3....@newsfe23.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 10:56:32 -0700, Billy wrote:
>>
>> > California revenue surges ahead of revised budget plan =====
>> >
>> > As revenues improve, we'll have more money to use to shut down the
>> > cowboys, and Rambos, and get those violent toys out of the communities.
>>
>> To a leftard there is always enough other people's money to take rights
>> away. Especially those rights that represent a "threat" to tyranny.
>
>Sorry, you poor little rightard victim, you want to claim a right that I
>and the majority of the community at large consider a threat to the
>peace. Now how do you think one might arrive at a resolution of such a
>conflict in a democracy? Hmmmmmmm?

My freedom is worth more than your tyranny.

>No, "blast it!" isn't acceptable.

Says who?

[1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:54 -0700, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu>
wrote:

>benj wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:09:56 -0700, a425couple wrote:
>
>>>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-
>
>> owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
>
>>>So, let's figure, that sounds like over 10 year backlog, just to get the
>>>known guns from criminals & unfit,
>
>>>And some want to go after the law abiding & sane??!!
>
>> Nah, you don't get it. It's so much easier and safer to take guns from
>> the law-abiding and sane. Criminals and insane may actually shoot you.
>
>Cops rather regularly insert themselves into situations where folks
>might actually shoot them. It's kinda in their job description.
>
>'Sides, with all those NRA types muttering things about "my cold dead
>hands", who's to say that criminal-types are the ones more likely to
>shoot you?

No. It's ~your~ cold dead hands if you choose the path of fascism.

>BTW, someone illegally possessing a firearm is hardly "law-abiding".

A law was just passed outlawing respiration. You are now a criminal.

[1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

True justice would be Eric Holder's car breaking down in a Mexican
backwater owned by the drug cartels...

[1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:48:37 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
wrote:

>Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You might want to dial back the crack a bit...

[Wayne]

"1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities" wrote in message
news:gv14q8hs8gn7lm8ln...@4ax.com...

# There is nothing more dangerous than a well-funded fascist. If there
# are any freedom-loving Californians left, prepare for the fight of
# your lives...

I see in your response that Billy responded to my previous comments, which I
didn't see because he in in my internet toilet filter.

You should have learned by now that Billy isn't worth dialogue. He is a
useless blob of pizza stained, farting meat.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities"

<LyingB...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:1824q8lj2mi1pijee...@4ax.com...

The appropriate slogan for the US is: 'The Tree of Liberty must be kept
watered with the blood of innocents'.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
<LyingB...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message

news:na24q8ddl2bc8u59s...@4ax.com...

>
> My freedom is worth more than your tyranny.
>

Tell that to the warden - if you live that long.

[bbhack]

One guy shuts down So. CA, 2 guys shut down Boston, and you think the
"system" is up to processing tens of thousands when TSHTF? Get serious.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:FLrot.6716$OS5....@newsfe24.iad...

What's not serious is thinking that the government is going to confiscate
everybody's guns. They can't even make a dent in guns held by criminals.
'Course letting criminals buy guns doesn't help either.

[bbhack]

Govment not going to take everyone's guns, but you might get your's
taken if you happen to be in NOLA during a hurricane, or maybe if your
doctor prescribes you some Ambien.

[Steve Rothstein]

On 5/26/2013 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FLrot.6716$OS5....@newsfe24.iad...
>> On 05/26/2013 12:01 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> "1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities"
>>> <LyingB...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>>> news:na24q8ddl2bc8u59s...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> My freedom is worth more than your tyranny.
>>>>
>>> Tell that to the warden - if you live that long.
>>
>> One guy shuts down So. CA, 2 guys shut down Boston, and you think the
>> "system" is up to processing tens of thousands when TSHTF? Get serious.
>>
> What's not serious is thinking that the government is going to confiscate
> everybody's guns.

I don't think they will ever confiscate everyone's guns in the US. But
that doesn't mean that they will not try. My being prepared to fight the
attempt is what helps keep them from trying.

A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This
is the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.

> They can't even make a dent in guns held by criminals.
> 'Course letting criminals buy guns doesn't help either.

They only let criminals buy guns because there is no way to stop it.
Think about it for a second, in an honest and objective manner. What
laws will stop a criminal from buying guns? Before you answer, remember
that criminals reported where they get their guns and almost none of
them said they bought them from licensed gun dealers.

Steve Rothstein

[benj]

Anyway, Steve, as you know, criminals are the only citizens who legally
do not have to register their guns EVER. Registration of criminal guns
has been ruled a violation of their 5th amendment right against self-
incrimination. Thus, Ironically, all registration information (state,
local, concealed carry, reports of theft, Class II registrations etc.)
goes to a homeland security database, but to put criminals in there would
violate their civil rights and make the bureaucrats open to criminal
civil rights charges.

Thus, if you don't know where the guns are, you can't collect them.
Therefore, collecting criminal guns really can't happen. Except as in
Kalifornia where they send guys out knocking on doors asking:"Gee Mr. and
Mrs. criminal, do you illegally have any guns?" If they choose to remain
silent, what can they do? Only law-abiding citizens can be made to
register their guns.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UJednZ814oIRAD_M...@earthlink.com...

> On 5/26/2013 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>> What's not serious is thinking that the government is going to confiscate
>> everybody's guns.
>
> I don't think they will ever confiscate everyone's guns in the US. But
> that doesn't mean that they will not try. My being prepared to fight the
> attempt is what helps keep them from trying.

What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.

>
> A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This is
> the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.

And it's bullshit logic.

>
>> They can't even make a dent in guns held by criminals.
>> 'Course letting criminals buy guns doesn't help either.
>
> They only let criminals buy guns because there is no way to stop it.

Yeah, there is - rightards, however, refuse to allow the necessary steps.

> Think about it for a second, in an honest and objective manner. What laws
> will stop a criminal from buying guns? Before you answer, remember that
> criminals reported where they get their guns and almost none of them said
> they bought them from licensed gun dealers.
>

They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
number of guns in the hands of criminals.

[benj]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 18:50:21 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
> background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
> background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
> number of guns in the hands of criminals.

Sorry moron, but criminals can't be required to have a background check.
That would be self-incrimination and would violate their 5th amendment
rights. Hence the ONLY people that can be stopped by background checks
are those who are not criminals!

Thinking isn't something you do, is it?

[Bill Shatzer]

Criminals are not the folks doing the background checks - it''s the
-transferor- who is required to run the background check and stop the
transfer if the background check isn't clean.

The issue of the 5th amendment never arises.

peace and justice,

[Steve Rothstein]

On 5/26/2013 8:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UJednZ814oIRAD_M...@earthlink.com...
>> On 5/26/2013 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>> What's not serious is thinking that the government is going to confiscate
>>> everybody's guns.
>>
>> I don't think they will ever confiscate everyone's guns in the US. But
>> that doesn't mean that they will not try. My being prepared to fight the
>> attempt is what helps keep them from trying.
>
> What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.

Their public statements indicate otherwise, as do their policies they
attempt to push through.

And if you wonder who "they" are, I will cite the example of the
California senator who stated that she would push for a bill to collect
every gun in the country if she thought she could get enough votes.

That is just one example of several.

>>
>> A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This is
>> the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.
>
> And it's bullshit logic.

It might be, but it seems to work. And if it is BS, all it costs is my
time and money with no harm to anyone else. It only could be a problem
for others if it was not BS.

>
>>
>>> They can't even make a dent in guns held by criminals.
>>> 'Course letting criminals buy guns doesn't help either.
>>
>> They only let criminals buy guns because there is no way to stop it.
>
> Yeah, there is - rightards, however, refuse to allow the necessary steps.

No, there is not any way. After all, the laws do not seem to stop
murder, robbery, or drug use. What makes you think any law could stop a
criminal from buying a gun?

>
>> Think about it for a second, in an honest and objective manner. What laws
>> will stop a criminal from buying guns? Before you answer, remember that
>> criminals reported where they get their guns and almost none of them said
>> they bought them from licensed gun dealers.
>>
> They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
> background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
> background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
> number of guns in the hands of criminals.

If your assumption of why they don't buy from dealers is correct, your
conclusion might still be incorrect. But there is no evidence yet that
the premise is correct to begin with. Since most of them steal guns or
buy them on the street, my premise is that the cost is lower and not
that the background check makes a difference. Please show any evidence
that the background check is why they don't buy, as you have claimed.

Steve Rothstein

[Steve Rothstein]

Bill,

The problem is that the background check comes up clean if the buyer
lies on the form about his prior record (or name and ID information).
And there are a couple old SCOTUS cases that have overturned convictions
for that based on the 5th Amendment. Asking if a person can legally buy
the gun when he fills out a government form is a form of self-incrimination.

Steve Rothstein

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:IMudneiuRP3TZD_M...@earthlink.com...

> On 5/26/2013 8:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>> What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.
>
> Their public statements indicate otherwise, as do their policies they
> attempt to push through.
>
> And if you wonder who "they" are, I will cite the example of the
> California senator who stated that she would push for a bill to collect
> every gun in the country if she thought she could get enough votes.

Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of gun,
they're after every kind of gun.

>
> That is just one example of several.

My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
distortion of what she's asking for.

>
>>>
>>> A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This
>>> is
>>> the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.
>>
>> And it's bullshit logic.
>
>
> It might be, but it seems to work. And if it is BS, all it costs is my
> time and money with no harm to anyone else. It only could be a problem for
> others if it was not BS.

30,000 lives a year says you're wrong.

>>
>> Yeah, there is - rightards, however, refuse to allow the necessary steps.
>
> No, there is not any way. After all, the laws do not seem to stop murder,
> robbery, or drug use. What makes you think any law could stop a criminal
> from buying a gun?

Because they do.

>>>
>> They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
>> background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
>> background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
>> number of guns in the hands of criminals.
>
> If your assumption of why they don't buy from dealers is correct, your
> conclusion might still be incorrect. But there is no evidence yet that the
> premise is correct to begin with. Since most of them steal guns or buy
> them on the street, my premise is that the cost is lower and not that the
> background check makes a difference. Please show any evidence that the
> background check is why they don't buy, as you have claimed.
>

How dense are you? If they fail the Background Check, they -can't- buy.
Over 100,000 per year fail those checks. An estimated 40% of criminal's
guns, however, were purchased without any background checks from gun shows,
online, or from private parties.

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/27/2013 10:34 AM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IMudneiuRP3TZD_M...@earthlink.com...
>> On 5/26/2013 8:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.
>>
>> Their public statements indicate otherwise, as do their policies they
>> attempt to push through.
>>
>> And if you wonder who "they" are, I will cite the example of the
>> California senator who stated that she would push for a bill to collect
>> every gun in the country if she thought she could get enough votes.
>
> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of gun,
> they're after every kind of gun.
>
>>
>> That is just one example of several.
>
> My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
> distortion of what she's asking for.

What is your take on what she is asking for? It is customary for normal
adults to explain their blind statements like the one about "gross
distortion." At any rate, here is what she has really said about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJiN_ertyCg

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This
>>>> is
>>>> the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.
>>>
>>> And it's bullshit logic.
>>
>>
>> It might be, but it seems to work. And if it is BS, all it costs is my
>> time and money with no harm to anyone else. It only could be a problem for
>> others if it was not BS.
>
> 30,000 lives a year says you're wrong.

Cite?

>
>>>
>>> Yeah, there is - rightards, however, refuse to allow the necessary steps.
>>
>> No, there is not any way. After all, the laws do not seem to stop murder,
>> robbery, or drug use. What makes you think any law could stop a criminal
>> from buying a gun?
>
> Because they do.

And you say so from scratching your left cheek. Theoretically readers
are supposed to read that load of bunk!

>
>>>>
>>> They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
>>> background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
>>> background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
>>> number of guns in the hands of criminals.
>>
>> If your assumption of why they don't buy from dealers is correct, your
>> conclusion might still be incorrect. But there is no evidence yet that the
>> premise is correct to begin with. Since most of them steal guns or buy
>> them on the street, my premise is that the cost is lower and not that the
>> background check makes a difference. Please show any evidence that the
>> background check is why they don't buy, as you have claimed.
>>
> How dense are you? If they fail the Background Check, they -can't- buy.
> Over 100,000 per year fail those checks. An estimated 40% of criminal's
> guns, however, were purchased without any background checks from gun shows,
> online, or from private parties.
>

Your scratching your right cheek now is not evidence about the
background checks.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:51a38aa2$0$20230$607e...@cv.net...

>> "Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:IMudneiuRP3TZD_M...@earthlink.com...
>>> On 5/26/2013 8:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.
>>>
>>> Their public statements indicate otherwise, as do their policies they
>>> attempt to push through.
>>>
>>> And if you wonder who "they" are, I will cite the example of the
>>> California senator who stated that she would push for a bill to collect
>>> every gun in the country if she thought she could get enough votes.
>>
>> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
>> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
>> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of
>> gun,
>> they're after every kind of gun.
>>
>>>
>>> That is just one example of several.
>>
>> My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
>> distortion of what she's asking for.

Are you Steve?

>
> What is your take on what she is asking for? It is customary for normal
> adults to explain their blind statements like the one about "gross
> distortion." At any rate, here is what she has really said about that:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJiN_ertyCg

Ah, another edited video ah la Breitbart and O'Keefe.

Here's from Feinstein:
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Gun_Control.htm

Do you see anywhere that she asks for a ban on all guns? Do you see
anywhere where she calls for confiscating all guns?

[bbhack]

Remove all the suicides, criminal on criminal killings (good thing),
defensive killings (good thing), and see what number you come up with.

Not that suicides are not tragic, but crazees and bipolars have nothing
to do with gun rights. They have separate responsibilities due to their
illnesses.

And don't think your numbers, no matter what they are, can be used to
take away rights.

>
>>>
>>> Yeah, there is - rightards, however, refuse to allow the necessary steps.
>>
>> No, there is not any way. After all, the laws do not seem to stop murder,
>> robbery, or drug use. What makes you think any law could stop a criminal
>> from buying a gun?
>
> Because they do.

It seems like you want to live in a different country. Maybe you should
explore that option. I am, but not for the same reasons. I'm very
worried about where this thing's headed.

>
>>>>
>>> They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
>>> background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
>>> background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
>>> number of guns in the hands of criminals.
>>
>> If your assumption of why they don't buy from dealers is correct, your
>> conclusion might still be incorrect. But there is no evidence yet that the
>> premise is correct to begin with. Since most of them steal guns or buy
>> them on the street, my premise is that the cost is lower and not that the
>> background check makes a difference. Please show any evidence that the
>> background check is why they don't buy, as you have claimed.
>>
> How dense are you? If they fail the Background Check, they -can't- buy.
> Over 100,000 per year fail those checks. An estimated 40% of criminal's
> guns, however, were purchased without any background checks from gun shows,
> online, or from private parties.
>
>
>

That's how it works, champ. Criminals prefer stealing their guns, or
buying stolen guns from other criminals. There should be a law!

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:BwMot.53509$cD1....@newsfe29.iad...

> On 05/27/2013 09:34 AM, Baxter wrote:
>
> And don't think your numbers, no matter what they are, can be used to take
> away rights.
>

Rights entail responsibilities, and now is the time to start talking about
those responsibilities -- like keeping guns out of the hands of criminals,
children and the suicidal

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:BwMot.53509$cD1....@newsfe29.iad...

> That's how it works, champ. Criminals prefer stealing their guns, or
> buying stolen guns from other criminals. There should be a law!
>

======
"40 percent of criminals get their guns from friends and family members,
and another 37 percent get theirs from theft or other illegal sources"

Rolling “theft or other illegal sources” together glosses over the fact that
direct theft is a relatively rare means of obtaining a gun. Must guns held
by criminals during their arrest came from family or friends. The next
biggest block came from illegal purchases.

What the report doesn’t say is where the guns came from before they fell
into the hands of illegal dealers or others willing to provide guns to
people about to commit crimes.

A guy who wants a gun but can’t get one because of his criminal record
probably isn’t going to steal one and he’s probably not going to wait for
the next gun show to roll through town. He’s probably going to go to someone
who buys and sells guns and is willing to put them in the hands of people
who can’t pass background checks. That person, if he also has a criminal
record ( which seems likely for someone who sells guns to criminals ),
probably gets his guns from gun shows, the internet, or trade with other
dealers, etc. Closing loopholes won’t stop all of these sales, but will stop
a lot of them. It will certainly stop a lot more than the less than 1% that
gun control opponents would have you believe based on the BJS report.

Just because a prisoner responding to a survey says, “I got my gun from a
friend”, doesn’t mean that universal background checks wouldn’t have
prevented that gun from getting into the hands of a criminal.



http://tinyurl.com/qarzzsy

[bbhack]

On 05/27/2013 12:32 PM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BwMot.53509$cD1....@newsfe29.iad...
>> That's how it works, champ. Criminals prefer stealing their guns, or
>> buying stolen guns from other criminals. There should be a law!
>>
> ======
> "40 percent of criminals get their guns from friends and family members,
> and another 37 percent get theirs from theft or other illegal sources"

Those 40% of sources (friends and family members) are also criminals,
doof, because, well, do I have to explain it?

That's makes 77 percent according to your numbers.

Now, even in a private transaction, it's illegal to sell to a felon, so
that makes close to 100% of transactions that are criminal, and are
therefore not subject to a background check.

The remaining are those not yet felons buying their guns legitimately
for the first time. We really need to rip up the whole system to handle
that.

[bbhack]

How many times do I have to say it: leave the suicides out of it. Sick
people have responsibilities that most do not. If a sick fuck wants to
have a gun around just in case he feels like ending it today, that does
not bear on any 2A or self defensive arguments.

[Sancho Panza]

And that is based on scratching your left testicle.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:31Not.70$OA5...@newsfe12.iad...

> On 05/27/2013 12:25 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> "bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BwMot.53509$cD1....@newsfe29.iad...
>>> On 05/27/2013 09:34 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> And don't think your numbers, no matter what they are, can be used to
>>> take
>>> away rights.
>>>
>>
>> Rights entail responsibilities, and now is the time to start talking
>> about
>> those responsibilities -- like keeping guns out of the hands of
>> criminals,
>> children and the suicidal
>
> How many times do I have to say it: leave the suicides out of it.

No matter how many times you say it, you will never be right

>Sick people have responsibilities that most do not. If a sick fuck wants to
>have a gun around just in case he feels like ending it today, that does not
>bear on any 2A or self defensive arguments.
>

So? Who said that 2A or self defensive were the only valid arguments?
Other than you extremist gun fondlers?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:j_Mot.6069$Ju6....@newsfe22.iad...

> On 05/27/2013 12:32 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> "bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:BwMot.53509$cD1....@newsfe29.iad...
>>> That's how it works, champ. Criminals prefer stealing their guns, or
>>> buying stolen guns from other criminals. There should be a law!
>>>
>> ======
>> "40 percent of criminals get their guns from friends and family
>> members,
>> and another 37 percent get theirs from theft or other illegal sources"
>
> Those 40% of sources (friends and family members) are also criminals,
> doof, because, well, do I have to explain it?
>

You're engaging in Sophistry.

[Mike Smith]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:16:21 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

>-
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:31Not.70$OA5...@newsfe12.iad...
>> On 05/27/2013 12:25 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> "bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:BwMot.53509$cD1....@newsfe29.iad...
>>>> On 05/27/2013 09:34 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And don't think your numbers, no matter what they are, can be used to
>>>> take
>>>> away rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rights entail responsibilities, and now is the time to start talking
>>> about
>>> those responsibilities -- like keeping guns out of the hands of
>>> criminals,
>>> children and the suicidal
>>
>> How many times do I have to say it: leave the suicides out of it.
>
>No matter how many times you say it, you will never be right

If you want to commit suicide, I'll let you borrow my 9mm.

Mike Smith

[bbhack]

Because you can't refute it?

Go ahead and sell a gun to a felon. I'll call your sheriff and ask him
to stop by and explain to you what you did. He'll be nice about it.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a3a2e2$0$25627$607e...@cv.net...

> On 5/27/2013 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Ah, another edited video ah la Breitbart and O'Keefe.
>
> And that is based on scratching your left testicle.
>

Based on the fact that rightards lie about everything.

[benj]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 07:34:20 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of
> gun, they're after every kind of gun.
>
>
>> That is just one example of several.
>
> My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
> distortion of what she's asking for.

Typical liberal liar. You people can't ever tell the truth about
ANYTHING, can you?

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for
an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America,
turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes
weren't here."[26]

Sure sounds like she was following the oath she swore to make sure the
right to keep and bear arms is never infringed! I don't think
confiscation is an "infringement"! Do you?

Would have taken you about 5 seconds on the internet to get the facts,
but why tell the truth when a lie will do?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:apQot.14871$7h5....@newsfe07.iad...

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 07:34:20 -0700, Baxter wrote:
>
>> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
>> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
>> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of
>> gun, they're after every kind of gun.
>>
>>
>>> That is just one example of several.
>>
>> My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
>> distortion of what she's asking for.
>
> Typical liberal liar. You people can't ever tell the truth about
> ANYTHING, can you?
>
> "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for
> an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America,
> turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes
> weren't here."[26]
>

'Cept one thing - she wasn't talking about all guns - rather, a specific
type of gun.

[Steve Rothstein]

On 5/27/2013 9:34 AM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IMudneiuRP3TZD_M...@earthlink.com...
>> On 5/26/2013 8:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.
>>
>> Their public statements indicate otherwise, as do their policies they
>> attempt to push through.
>>
>> And if you wonder who "they" are, I will cite the example of the
>> California senator who stated that she would push for a bill to collect
>> every gun in the country if she thought she could get enough votes.
>
> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of gun,
> they're after every kind of gun.
>

No, I am not one of those "Chicken Littles" and I would appreciate if
you would not distort what I said or try to put words into my mouth.
Obviously, not everyone everywhere wants to take all guns. But I gave an
example of someone who does want to and can provide more examples.

As for the power, the example showed that she knew she did not have the
power at the time but would do it if she had the power. Thus, it is a
solid argument for preparing and fighting her getting that power. It is
a common though not universal position in the Democratic party, which
has the power of the administration and control of the senate right now.

If you would care for another example, I would point out that the
President has said he would order many forms of gun control by executive
order since he cannot get it through the congress.

>>
>> That is just one example of several.
>
> My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
> distortion of what she's asking for.

But it was not a distortion at all of what she said she wanted. She is a
smart enough politician to know that she cannot always ask for what she
wants, so the two are not necessarily related. I will continue to
prepare and fight against her getting what she wants so she never does
ask for it.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This
>>>> is
>>>> the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.
>>>
>>> And it's bullshit logic.
>>
>>
>> It might be, but it seems to work. And if it is BS, all it costs is my
>> time and money with no harm to anyone else. It only could be a problem for
>> others if it was not BS.
>
> 30,000 lives a year says you're wrong.

Care to explain that? My preparation and fight against guns being seized
from law abiding citizens has not cost a single life yet.

>
>>>
>>> Yeah, there is - rightards, however, refuse to allow the necessary steps.
>>
>> No, there is not any way. After all, the laws do not seem to stop murder,
>> robbery, or drug use. What makes you think any law could stop a criminal
>> from buying a gun?
>
> Because they do.

Explain how. Clearly, the law does not stop them from committing crimes
or they would not be criminals, would they?

>
>>>>
>>> They didn't buy from licensed gun dealers because they couldn't pass the
>>> background checks required for the sale. Which shows you that requiring
>>> background checks for ALL gun sales would be effective in reducing the
>>> number of guns in the hands of criminals.
>>
>> If your assumption of why they don't buy from dealers is correct, your
>> conclusion might still be incorrect. But there is no evidence yet that the
>> premise is correct to begin with. Since most of them steal guns or buy
>> them on the street, my premise is that the cost is lower and not that the
>> background check makes a difference. Please show any evidence that the
>> background check is why they don't buy, as you have claimed.
>>
> How dense are you? If they fail the Background Check, they -can't- buy.
> Over 100,000 per year fail those checks. An estimated 40% of criminal's
> guns, however, were purchased without any background checks from gun shows,
> online, or from private parties.

Cite? According to this report from the federal government, only 19%
were bought from all sources, 0 of which were bought "online" (which is
illegal already). Note that 40% were obtained from friends or family,
which does not say bought but could include borrowed, either with or
without the family member's knowledge. The remaining 40% were obtained
from street and illegal sources.

And in all cases, providing a weapon to a known felon is already
illegal, as is giving a person a gun that you have reasonable suspicion
will be used in a crime. So clearly, the law does not and cannot stop
the criminal from getting a gun.

Even our esteemed vice president has recently acknowledged that none of
the current proposals for gun control will stop any criminal from
getting a gun. Note that the universal background check you are pushing
was included in that statement. If they would not stop a single crime,
what is the purpose of proposing the law then?

Steve Rothstein

[Sancho Panza]

That is one hell of a dumb explanation. But typically no surprise that
you can't back up what you say in any shape, manner or form. Just keep
on posting crap in you futile effort to stink up the place. Real public
citizen you are. Can't discuss even simple facts and ideas like a mature
adult.

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/26/2013 9:18 AM, 1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013 04:54:39 GMT, benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

>
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:44:54 -0700, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>
>>> benj wrote:
>>

>>>> Nah, you don't get it. It's so much easier and safer to take guns from
>>>> the law-abiding and sane. Criminals and insane may actually shoot you.
>>>
>>> Cops rather regularly insert themselves into situations where folks
>>> might actually shoot them. It's kinda in their job description.
>>
>> And cops intend to go home at the end of the shift. Which is why so many
>> grannies end up getting shot. It's shoot first and ask questions later.
>>
>>> 'Sides, with all those NRA types muttering things about "my cold dead
>>> hands", who's to say that criminal-types are the ones more likely to
>>> shoot you?
>>
>> Yeah, I've heard all that "cold dead hands" crap. I've never seen it. Lot
>> of talk. These guys usually won't spend $35 to join the NRA or even
>> bother to vote let alone do real work for candidates. So you think
>> they'll take on a war with a whole police force? Highly unlikely.
>>
>>> BTW, someone illegally possessing a firearm is hardly "law-abiding".
>>
>> By the way, we really weren't talking about police who have to deal with
>> real criminals, but government "agents" going out to gather guns and how
>> they'd rather act tough with honest law-abiding gun owners rather than
>> felons who just MAY take on the whole police force.
>>
>>> peace and justice,
>>
>> Where is peace and justice when our own leaders ship thousands of guns to
>> drug cartels simply to try to make some political point at the cost of
>> thousands of lives? Anyone arrested for those crimes yet? See?
>
> True justice would be Eric Holder's car breaking down in a Mexican
> backwater owned by the drug cartels...
>
They would probably treat him like a king. AFter all, he has procured a
multitude of arms for them and in addition has hardly prosecuted any of
them.

[Steve Rothstein]

A public discussion on usenet is always open to others joining in at any
time.

>
>>
>> What is your take on what she is asking for? It is customary for normal
>> adults to explain their blind statements like the one about "gross
>> distortion." At any rate, here is what she has really said about that:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJiN_ertyCg
>
> Ah, another edited video ah la Breitbart and O'Keefe.

Prove it. Which part is edited? Are you saying the part showing her
saying she would take up every one is not really her?

>
> Here's from Feinstein:
> http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Dianne_Feinstein_Gun_Control.htm
>
> Do you see anywhere that she asks for a ban on all guns? Do you see
> anywhere where she calls for confiscating all guns?

This is not her page, but an organization posting her responses to their
survey and some of her votes. As I pointed out before, her wants and her
official positions may not agree for various reasons, including the fact
that she is an intelligent politician. She knows that saying she wants
to ban all guns is not a winning position, even in California. I will
continue to believe that she wants to ban all guns until I see a
believable retraction from her of that statement.

Steve Rothstein

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/26/2013 9:19 AM, 1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 22:48:37 -0700, Billy <wild...@withouta.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
> You might want to dial back the crack a bit...
>
It seems to be the only way to function.

[Steve Rothstein]

I agree that rights entail responsibilities. I see no problem with
letting my children have guns, and have given each of them their own on
their tenth birthdays. None of my guns have ever been used in crimes or
come into the possession of criminals. And none have been used by anyone
to commit suicides.

So, why should any of my guns be restricted?

And if you want to restrict anything, explain how it would stop
criminals from getting guns. Obviously, we disagree on the access of
children to guns, with me preferring to allow my children access and
teaching them how to use them properly. And you really need to explain
how you would prevent guns from getting into the hands of the suicidal
without infringing on people's rights to medical privacy or to own
firearms. Incidentally, you might explain what good you think it will do
since studies also show that when guns are restricted, suicides simply
increase other methods. For example, in Japan, with strict gun laws, the
currently popular method of committing suicide is to use poison gas,
which presents a much greater threat to the neighbors and to first
responders.

Steve Rothstein

[Steve Rothstein]

They are not the only valid arguments, but any argument against guns
must take into account the 2A, since it is the predominant argument. I
have the right to guns, so you need to show a much higher level of
government interest to restrict them than you would if there was no 2A
right.

Steve Rothstein

[Sancho Panza]

Let's see your version of the quotation. Or maybe you don't have
anything like that, either.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:XIidncH0v9QPcz7M...@earthlink.com...

> On 5/27/2013 9:34 AM, Baxter wrote:
>> "Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:IMudneiuRP3TZD_M...@earthlink.com...
>>> On 5/26/2013 8:50 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What you haven't figured out is that "they" don't care.
>>>
>>> Their public statements indicate otherwise, as do their policies they
>>> attempt to push through.
>>>
>>> And if you wonder who "they" are, I will cite the example of the
>>> California senator who stated that she would push for a bill to collect
>>> every gun in the country if she thought she could get enough votes.
>>
>> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
>> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
>> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of
>> gun,
>> they're after every kind of gun.
>>
>
> No, I am not one of those "Chicken Littles" and I would appreciate if you
> would not distort what I said or try to put words into my mouth.
> Obviously, not everyone everywhere wants to take all guns. But I gave an
> example of someone who does want to and can provide more examples.

You claim that I'm putting words into your mouth and distorting what you
say, but that would appear to not be the case - it is you who is putting
words into Feinstein's mouth and distorting what she said
<snip>

>
> If you would care for another example, I would point out that the
> President has said he would order many forms of gun control by executive
> order since he cannot get it through the congress.

And when Obama specified what those actions would/could be, none of them
involved "collecting every gun in the country".

You, sir, are a liar.

[Baxter]

--

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a3f00d$0$25612$607e...@cv.net...

You just want to run me ragged refuting your crap and bullshit.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:GfSdnQ9HFdGtbD7M...@earthlink.com...

> On 5/27/2013 11:46 AM, Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Are you Steve?
>
> A public discussion on usenet is always open to others joining in at any
> time.
>

And then they do the "moving goalposts" or "I didn't say that" bullshit.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Psednfmeh4KYbj7M...@earthlink.com...

> On 5/27/2013 12:25 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Rights entail responsibilities, and now is the time to start talking
>> about
>> those responsibilities -- like keeping guns out of the hands of
>> criminals,
>> children and the suicidal
>>
>>
>
> I agree that rights entail responsibilities. I see no problem with letting
> my children have guns, and have given each of them their own on their
> tenth birthdays. None of my guns have ever been used in crimes or come
> into the possession of criminals. And none have been used by anyone to
> commit suicides.

And you've been lucky - so far. Too many others have not so lucky.
http://tinyurl.com/cp6kesm

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/27/2013 9:03 PM, Baxter wrote:
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:51a3f00d$0$25612$607e...@cv.net...
>> >On 5/27/2013 3:58 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> >>"Sancho Panza"<otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >>news:51a3a2e2$0$25627$607e...@cv.net...
>>>> >>>On 5/27/2013 12:46 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>Ah, another edited video ah la Breitbart and O'Keefe.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>And that is based on scratching your left testicle.
>>>> >>>
>>> >>Based on the fact that rightards lie about everything.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >That is one hell of a dumb explanation. But typically no surprise that you
>> >can't back up what you say in any shape, manner or form. Just keep on
>> >posting crap in you futile effort to stink up the place. Real public
>> >citizen you are. Can't discuss even simple facts and ideas like a mature
>> >adult.
>> >
> You just want to run me ragged refuting your crap and bullshit.
>
>

You are your own worst enemy. If you can't back up the insane statement
about editing the video, there are two rational choices. 1) Admit the
falsity. 2) Keep quiet. But noooooo. You want to keep posting crap out
of some deep psychiatric need. Then you have the chutzpah to complain
about carrying on that psychotic behavior. In many ways a very poor soul
is displaying his troubled results for all the world to see.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a3f3db$0$25645$607e...@cv.net...

Here's the site, and text, for the bill in question:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

You'll note from the very outset she was talking about Assault Weapons and
only Assault Weapons - not about all guns.

[Steve Rothstein]

Nope, no luck involved at all. I just made sure I taught my children
properly to begin with. Since it is impossible to child proof my house
(children are too ingenious at getting into things), I gun proof my
children.

Steve Rothstein

[Scott M. Kozel]

On May 27, 7:57 pm, Steve Rothstein <stephan_rothst...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Hanging is the age-old suicide method that is almost always available
to the suicidal. It is also quite lethal.

[Steve Rothstein]

That is pretty good. In a quote from the 1990's, she was referring to
the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. That is the page you sent us to.

I might buy that she was only talking about assault weapons, but she has
never said that since the video was made public, back in the 90's. Until
she makes it clear, or you can show more of the clip which would make it
clear (assuming you are correct about the editing of the video), I will
go with she said what she wanted.

Steve Rothstein

[Steve Rothstein]

No sir, I put no words in her mouth and someone else has even posted the
link to the video where she literally says she would take up every gun.

>>
>> If you would care for another example, I would point out that the
>> President has said he would order many forms of gun control by executive
>> order since he cannot get it through the congress.
>
> And when Obama specified what those actions would/could be, none of them
> involved "collecting every gun in the country".
>
> You, sir, are a liar.

Thank you for making the ad hominem attacks. It confirms that you are
not interested in an honest debate and I am now including you in my kill
file.

I did not say that Obama said he would take up every gun, just that he
was interested in gun control and would take action over and above what
the congress would pass. Despite your creative editing of the posts,
this example was in reference to your claim about my using people who
have no power and it was clearly marked as such. Anyone who has followed
the thread will see this and know who is debating fairly and who is lying.

Steve Rothstein

[benj]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:02:11 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> And when Obama specified what those actions would/could be, none of them
> involved "collecting every gun in the country".
>
> You, sir, are a liar.

And as I recall a previoous "Baxter" post a psychopathic liar at that!

This is funny! Steve is pro gun, but about the most adult and stable and
careful poster in the entire newsgroup! To watch a lying leftard attempt
to smear of his integrity is the height of hilarity!

You see, Steve, you just don't get it. "Infringed" means that EVERY gun
is gathered up. If you only gather up most of them or all but the ones
shooting corks on a string, then it's not an "infringement".

[benj]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:13:33 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> Here's the site, and text, for the bill in question:
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>
> You'll note from the very outset she was talking about Assault Weapons
> and only Assault Weapons - not about all guns.

Except that military firearms are the VERY guns protected by the Second
Amendment. (See Miller) Hunting equipment is not protected. Hence, it is
clear that she is attacking the Constitution of the United States of
America which she swore to uphold. So why is she still in office?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:HOUot.10506$kj3....@newsfe16.iad...

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 18:13:33 -0700, Baxter wrote:
>
>> Here's the site, and text, for the bill in question:
>> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>>
>> You'll note from the very outset she was talking about Assault Weapons
>> and only Assault Weapons - not about all guns.
>
> Except that military firearms are the VERY guns protected by the Second
> Amendment. (See Miller) Hunting equipment is not protected.

Really?! So why do things like Machine guns and hand grenades have to be
registered and you have to have a special license to purchase them?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:h6CdnRQDhJw_kDnM...@earthlink.com...

So show us the text of that legislation from the 1990's that would have
confiscated all guns. And show us how what she said or did nearly 20 years
ago is still relevant today when she explicitly limits the bans to certain
weapons and where she explicitly excludes existing weapons lawfully
possessed from the legislation.

[1,991 murdered in Obama's organized communities]

Okay. We disguise him really well first...

[benj]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 20:02:10 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> -
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

>> Except that military firearms are the VERY guns protected by the Second
>> Amendment. (See Miller) Hunting equipment is not protected.
>
> Really?! So why do things like Machine guns and hand grenades have to
> be registered and you have to have a special license to purchase them?

Why are liberals all so ignorant that you ALWAYS have explain things to
them?

Those firearms (protected by the Second Amendment as a soldier's standard
gear, by the way) are not licensed. They are TAXED. And unlike a poll
tax, it's a tax on rights that has never been tested in SCOTUS.

You need to keep your public disarmament scams straight.

[Sancho Panza]

On 5/27/2013 11:38 PM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Steve Rothstein" <stephan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h6CdnRQDhJw_kDnM...@earthlink.com...
>> On 5/27/2013 8:13 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>>
>>> Here's the site, and text, for the bill in question:
>>> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>>>
>>> You'll note from the very outset she was talking about Assault Weapons
>>> and
>>> only Assault Weapons - not about all guns.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That is pretty good. In a quote from the 1990's, she was referring to the
>> Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. That is the page you sent us to.
>>
>> I might buy that she was only talking about assault weapons, but she has
>> never said that since the video was made public, back in the 90's. Until
>> she makes it clear, or you can show more of the clip which would make it
>> clear (assuming you are correct about the editing of the video), I will go
>> with she said what she wanted.
>>
> So show us the text of that legislation from the 1990's that would have
> confiscated all guns.

This one is more like a stadium change than goalpost moving. Feinstein
never mentioned any text of hers. As she made crystal clear, she "did
the best she could," lacking the required votes.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:F9Zot.12109$bK1....@newsfe11.iad...

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0020.htm

As to your SCOTUS claim - it's not that simple, and they have indicated that
any right to a military-type weapon would be connected to membership in a
"well regulated militia".

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51a4a5aa$0$25604$607e...@cv.net...

IOW, you have no actual proof that she wanted to confiscate all guns.

[bbhack]

Anything you can hunt with you can defend with.

Anything you can defend with you can hunt with.

[benj]

Yes, but legally there is a difference. For example, In the Miller case,
the SC opined that a sawed off shotgun was NOT protected because they had
no military application (testimony of their use in WWI was not presented
due the death of the plaintiff). Therefore, they could be banned (or
taxed) and owning one deemed a crime.

Military arms are controlled by the Second Amendment. Sporting equipment
comes under the commerce clause. This is the basis for the push to ban
all "assault weapons" which are basically military-style firearms. Once
firearm ownership is restricted to "sporting purpose" gear, it all falls
under the commerce clause and everything gets banned with just a word.
Clever. OK, Mr. and Mrs. America! Turn them all in!

[Bert]

In news:bZ6pt.14652$MQ7....@newsfe18.iad benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> Military arms are controlled by the Second Amendment. Sporting equipment
> comes under the commerce clause.

Don't quit your day job.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[benj]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 07:05:48 -0700, Baxter wrote:
> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message

>> This one is more like a stadium change than goalpost moving. Feinstein
>> never mentioned any text of hers. As she made crystal clear, she "did
>> the best she could," lacking the required votes.
>>
> IOW, you have no actual proof that she wanted to confiscate all guns.

Proof is that she wanted to confiscate military style firearms which are
the ones covered by the Second Amendment. Sporting gear is not covered.

You are just babbling insanely trying to make up a story here. Bottom
line is clear: Feinstein should have no place in the Senate of the United
States of America.

[benj]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 07:00:34 -0700, Baxter wrote:
> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

> As to your SCOTUS claim - it's not that simple, and they have indicated
> that any right to a military-type weapon would be connected to
> membership in a "well regulated militia".

Duh. In case you didn't notice, we are ALL in the militia!

The "progressive" idea that the army is the "militia" is simply a lie.

It's been slapped down in court just like your nonsense that the 2nd
Amendment is a "collective" right. Even the dissenters slapped that
idiocy down.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:tf7pt.57860$v46....@newsfe13.iad...

For starters, you're no Supreme Court Justice - you have no credibility when
it comes to the 2nd Amendment. You're the one just babbling.

Do note that in 1994 they DID pass a ban on certain kinds of guns - and that
ban was never found unconstitutional.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

news:Bl7pt.49125$KM4....@newsfe25.iad...

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 07:00:34 -0700, Baxter wrote:
>> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
>> As to your SCOTUS claim - it's not that simple, and they have indicated
>> that any right to a military-type weapon would be connected to
>> membership in a "well regulated militia".
>
> Duh. In case you didn't notice, we are ALL in the militia!
>
> The "progressive" idea that the army is the "militia" is simply a lie.

That claim is a lie - progressives do not think the army is the militia.
The National Guard comes close, but there are still differences

>
> It's been slapped down in court just like your nonsense that the 2nd
> Amendment is a "collective" right. Even the dissenters slapped that
> idiocy down.

Not that simple:
======
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns.
In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time"
prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the
first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by
itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are
most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory
clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of
the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of
military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they
possessed at home."[46]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Bert]

In news:ko2da1$2uc$1...@speranza.aioe.org "Baxter"

<baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:

> As to your SCOTUS claim - it's not that simple, and they have
> indicated that any right to a military-type weapon would be connected
> to membership in a "well regulated militia".

Well, no.

[Sancho Panza]

Her own words in the video say just that. Your typical dumb goalpost
move about Feinstein's text failed miserably. Time to give it up. No one
expects you to come up with anything substantive. So don't worry about
what you say is your "ragged" ass.

[Sancho Panza]

She needs it to secure big lucrative contracts for her family company.
What a sellout!

[benj]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:35:26 -0700, Baxter wrote:

>> Duh. In case you didn't notice, we are ALL in the militia!


>>
>> The "progressive" idea that the army is the "militia" is simply a lie.
>
> That claim is a lie - progressives do not think the army is the militia.
> The National Guard comes close, but there are still differences
>>
>> It's been slapped down in court just like your nonsense that the 2nd
>> Amendment is a "collective" right. Even the dissenters slapped that
>> idiocy down.
>
> Not that simple:

Is that simple.

> ======
> The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine
> guns.

We both know dicta means squat.

> In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the
> time"
> prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over
> the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship
> to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which
> may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if
> weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the
> like – may be banned,
> then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the
> prefatory clause.

You still beating that dead "collective right" horse? Give it up. Even
YOUR side threw it out as idiotic.

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at
> the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all
> citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
> lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[46]

It's still the conception. You can look it up in federal law if you like.

And that means if the 2nd Amendment were really being followed, full auto
select-fire M16 "true" assault rifles would be available at any hardware
store without taxes, registrations, tests, background checks, or other
preconditions on rights. In other words without "infringements".

Needless to say you lefties have made pretty good progress in abolishing
the Bill of Rights through clever talk.

[benj]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 12:30:12 -0700, Baxter wrote:

> For starters, you're no Supreme Court Justice - you have no credibility
> when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. You're the one just babbling.

An you are? You are just some babbling left wing lone voice on the
internet. Oh I forgot if it's on the internet, it HAS to be true.

> Do note that in 1994 they DID pass a ban on certain kinds of guns - and
> that ban was never found unconstitutional.

Yet. Maybe once that law is compared to the Nazi law it was copied from
some people might not think it was so great.

Oh Wait! I mentioned Nazis!

Thread over!

[benj]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 19:01:42 +0000, Bert wrote:

> In news:bZ6pt.14652$MQ7....@newsfe18.iad benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>> Military arms are controlled by the Second Amendment. Sporting
>> equipment comes under the commerce clause.
>
> Don't quit your day job.

You think they can't ban your duck calls? Think again.

[The Daring Dufas]

On 5/26/2013 6:40 PM, Steve Rothstein wrote:

> On 5/26/2013 1:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
>> -
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>

>> "bbhack" <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:FLrot.6716$OS5....@newsfe24.iad...

>>> On 05/26/2013 12:01 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>>> "1,987 murdered in Obama's organized communities"

>>>> <LyingB...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>>>> news:na24q8ddl2bc8u59s...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> My freedom is worth more than your tyranny.
>>>>>
>>>> Tell that to the warden - if you live that long.
>>>
>>> One guy shuts down So. CA, 2 guys shut down Boston, and you think the
>>> "system" is up to processing tens of thousands when TSHTF? Get serious.
>>>
>> What's not serious is thinking that the government is going to confiscate
>> everybody's guns.
>
> I don't think they will ever confiscate everyone's guns in the US. But
> that doesn't mean that they will not try. My being prepared to fight the
> attempt is what helps keep them from trying.
>
> A philosopher once said that if you wanted peace, prepare for war. This
> is the logic at work in my fighting against gun confiscation.
>
>> They can't even make a dent in guns held by criminals.
>> 'Course letting criminals buy guns doesn't help either.
>
> They only let criminals buy guns because there is no way to stop it.
> Think about it for a second, in an honest and objective manner. What
> laws will stop a criminal from buying guns? Before you answer, remember
> that criminals reported where they get their guns and almost none of
> them said they bought them from licensed gun dealers.
>
> Steve Rothstein
>
>

In the big cities there has been a trend toward a community gun, the
gang banger needing a gun goes to the hiding place, gets the gun, robs
Whitey then puts the gun back in the hiding place. That way, said gang
banger is never caught with a gun in his/her/its possession. ^_^

TDD

[The Daring Dufas]

On 5/27/2013 8:13 PM, Baxter wrote:
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:51a3f3db$0$25645$607e...@cv.net...

>> On 5/27/2013 6:22 PM, Baxter wrote:
>>> "benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message

>>> news:apQot.14871$7h5....@newsfe07.iad...
>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 07:34:20 -0700, Baxter wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Ah yes, you're one of those Chicken Littles that beleive that if anyone
>>>>> anywhere, no matter how much or how little power they have, wants to
>>>>> confiscate guns , they they all do. And if they want to ban one kind of
>>>>> gun, they're after every kind of gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>> That is just one example of several.
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is you're talking about Feinstein - and your claim is a gross
>>>>> distortion of what she's asking for.
>>>>
>>>> Typical liberal liar. You people can't ever tell the truth about
>>>> ANYTHING, can you?
>>>>
>>>> "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for
>>>> an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs.
>>>> America,
>>>> turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes
>>>> weren't here."[26]
>>>>
>>> 'Cept one thing - she wasn't talking about all guns - rather, a specific
>>> type of gun.
>>>
>>>
>> Let's see your version of the quotation. Or maybe you don't have anything
>> like that, either.
>>

> Here's the site, and text, for the bill in question:
> http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
>
> You'll note from the very outset she was talking about Assault Weapons and
> only Assault Weapons - not about all guns.
>
>

Um, what's an Assault Weapon? Isn't that anything you use to assault
someone with? My roommate once had a phyco-bitch girlfriend who attacked
the next door neighbor with a shovel. She was arrested for assault. Is
the there going to be a federal ban on shovels? ^_^

TDD

[benj]

Depends. I'm sure Feinstein doesn't want to ban ALL shovels. God forbid!
She only wants to ban the nasty dangerous ones that are painted black
with a hand grip instead of the sporting straight wood handle. I'm pretty
certain this will be as effective in reducing crime as "shovel-free zone"
signs.

[benj]

And best of all once the gun has been used in a lot of crimes and to kill
a bunch of people, you can turn it in to a police "buy back" and get some
nifty sneakers as well as get rid of all the incriminating evidence "no
questions asked".

Leave it to the liberals to come up with sensible ways to reduce violent
crime.

[The Daring Dufas]

But the long handled shovels have more range an can deliver a more
powerful strike causing much more damage. ^_^

TDD

[Bill Shatzer]

The Daring Dufas wrote:

> On 6/17/2013 12:25 PM, benj wrote:

And spelling is hard!

peace and justice

[benj]

Sure, but facts play no role in liberal fantasy "solutions" to all the
world's problems.