Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Ray Keller
Apr 17, 2013, 7:36:48 PM4/17/13
to
Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights
proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
Governor�?Ts office, a veto is unlikely.
Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic State
Senator Steve Gillardo argued that Arizona has �?othe most liberal gun laws
in the nation and that has to stop.�?� Clearly no friend to gun rights, Sen.
Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments including one limiting magazine
sizes. All of which failed.
Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to
make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
Marathon is reason to remove American�?Ts rights to protect themselves.
Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohr�?Ts statement is
difficult to defend.
Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident.
News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when
told that criminals would still have them.
Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding
citizens should have, they�?Tve been unable to get guns out of the hands of
those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the state
has �?oa backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm�?�, says Stephen Lindley,
chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.
Maybe Arizona�?Ts Republican Senators are on to something. If citizens want
to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could be
great for municipalities. It�?Ts kind of a second hand store for guns where
the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and
maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
good deal. Unfortunately, criminals don�?Tt tend to turn in guns the rest of
America actually wants to buy.
CanopyCo
Apr 18, 2013, 8:35:03 AM4/18/13
to
On Apr 17, 6:36 pm, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>
> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>
> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>
> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights
> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
> Governorâ?Ts office, a veto is unlikely.
> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>
> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>
> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>
> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights
> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
>
> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic State
> Senator Steve Gillardo argued that Arizona has â?othe most liberal gun laws
> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic State
> in the nation and that has to stop.â? Clearly no friend to gun rights, Sen.
> Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments including one limiting magazine
> sizes. All of which failed.
>
> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to
> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
> Marathon is reason to remove Americanâ?Ts rights to protect themselves.
> sizes. All of which failed.
>
> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to
> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
>
> Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohrâ?Ts statement is
> difficult to defend.
>
> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident.
> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when
> told that criminals would still have them.
>
> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding
> citizens should have, theyâ?Tve been unable to get guns out of the hands of
>
> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident.
> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when
> told that criminals would still have them.
>
> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding
> those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the state
> has â?oa backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarmâ? , says Stephen Lindley,
> chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.
>
> Maybe Arizonaâ?Ts Republican Senators are on to something. If citizens want
>
> to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could be
> great for municipalities. Itâ?Ts kind of a second hand store for guns where
> the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and
> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
> good deal. Unfortunately, criminals donâ?Tt tend to turn in guns the rest of
> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
> America actually wants to buy.
Good grief.
What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
:-/
rbowman
Apr 18, 2013, 9:51:41 AM4/18/13
to
CanopyCo wrote:
> Good grief.
> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
I'll let you do the research but the police of a large metropolitan area
> Good grief.
> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
complained loudly about the number of firearms in their fair city. They then
got a sweet deal to rearm the force with Glocks. They offset the costs by
selling the old issue revolvers to the general public. I can't remember if
they peddled their used guns in someone else's city or were stupid enough to
sell them to their own homeboys.
Ed Huntress
Apr 18, 2013, 11:37:11 AM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 05:35:03 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 17, 6:36�pm, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>
>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>
>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
>> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>>
>> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights
>> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
>> Governor�?Ts office, a veto is unlikely.
>> in the nation and that has to stop.�? �Clearly no friend to gun rights, Sen.
>>
>> Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohr�?Ts statement is
all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
They've made it a free-for-all.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
>On Apr 17, 6:36�pm, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>
>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>
>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
>> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>>
>> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights
>> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
>>
>> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic State
>> Senator Steve Gillardo argued that Arizona has �?othe most liberal gun laws
>> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic State
>> in the nation and that has to stop.�? �Clearly no friend to gun rights, Sen.
>> Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments including one limiting magazine
>> sizes. All of which failed.
>>
>> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to
>> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
>> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
>> Marathon is reason to remove American�?Ts rights to protect themselves.
>> sizes. All of which failed.
>>
>> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to
>> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
>> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
>>
>> Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohr�?Ts statement is
>> difficult to defend.
>>
>> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident.
>> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when
>> told that criminals would still have them.
>>
>> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
>> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding
>> citizens should have, they�?Tve been unable to get guns out of the hands of
>>
>> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident.
>> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when
>> told that criminals would still have them.
>>
>> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
>> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding
>> those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the state
>> has �?oa backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm�? , says Stephen Lindley,
>> chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.
>>
>> Maybe Arizona�?Ts Republican Senators are on to something. If citizens want
>>
>> to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could be
>> great for municipalities. It�?Ts kind of a second hand store for guns where
>> the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and
>> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
>> good deal. Unfortunately, criminals don�?Tt tend to turn in guns the rest of
>> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
>> America actually wants to buy.
>
>Good grief.
>What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>:-/
If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>
>Good grief.
>What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>:-/
all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
They've made it a free-for-all.
--
Ed Huntress
Richard
Apr 18, 2013, 3:39:08 AM4/18/13
to
On 4/18/2013 10:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
> all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
> up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
> states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>
> They've made it a free-for-all.
>
Maybe a different tack?
> If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
> all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
> up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
> states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>
> They've made it a free-for-all.
>
Keep cars out of the hands of criminals.
That would really limit their crime radius and make it a lot
easier to police up.
Orval Fairbairn
Apr 18, 2013, 4:54:21 PM4/18/13
to
In article <YIKdnZFWydSB0e3M...@earthlink.com>,
No -- then they will use another "Progressive" scam: public transit.
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 6:17:12 PM4/18/13
to
"CanopyCo" <Junk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b37c963e-cbfe-42bf...@w3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 6:36 pm, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>
>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>> expensive.
>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>
>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required
>> to
>> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>>
>> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun
>> rights
>> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
>> Governor�?Ts office, a veto is unlikely.
>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>
>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>> expensive.
>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>
>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required
>> to
>> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>>
>> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun
>> rights
>> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
>>
>> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic
>> State
>> Senator Steve Gillardo argued that Arizona has �?othe most liberal gun
>> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic
>> State
>> laws
>> in the nation and that has to stop.�? Clearly no friend to gun rights,
>> Sen.
>> Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments including one limiting magazine
>> sizes. All of which failed.
>>
>> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought
>> to
>> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
>> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
>> Marathon is reason to remove American�?Ts rights to protect themselves.
>> Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments including one limiting magazine
>> sizes. All of which failed.
>>
>> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought
>> to
>> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
>> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
>>
>> Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohr�?Ts statement
>> is
>> difficult to defend.
>>
>> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more
>> evident.
>> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even
>> when
>> told that criminals would still have them.
>>
>> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
>> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns
>> law-abiding
>> citizens should have, they�?Tve been unable to get guns out of the hands
>> difficult to defend.
>>
>> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more
>> evident.
>> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even
>> when
>> told that criminals would still have them.
>>
>> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
>> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns
>> law-abiding
>> of
>> those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the
>> state
>> has �?oa backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm�? , says Stephen
>> those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the
>> state
>> Lindley,
>> chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.
>>
>> Maybe Arizona�?Ts Republican Senators are on to something. If citizens
>> chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.
>>
>> want
>> to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could
>> be
>> great for municipalities. It�?Ts kind of a second hand store for guns
>> to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could
>> be
>> where
>> the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and
>> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
>> good deal. Unfortunately, criminals don�?Tt tend to turn in guns the rest
>> the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and
>> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
>> of
>> America actually wants to buy.
>
> Good grief.
> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
> :-/
It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
>> America actually wants to buy.
>
> Good grief.
> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
> :-/
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 6:33:38 PM4/18/13
to
On 4/18/2013 5:17 PM, Scout wrote:
[snip]
>> Good grief.
>> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>> :-/
>
> It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for the
firearms industry, ought to be opposing this. I would expect the resale
of so many used guns to possibly undercut the profits to be earned from
selling more new guns.
[snip]
>>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>>
>>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>>> expensive.
>>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>>
>>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be
>>> required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
[snip]
>>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>>
>>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>>> expensive.
>>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>>
>>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be
>>> required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>> Good grief.
>> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>> :-/
>
> It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
firearms industry, ought to be opposing this. I would expect the resale
of so many used guns to possibly undercut the profits to be earned from
selling more new guns.
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Apr 18, 2013, 7:27:46 PM4/18/13
to
On Apr 18, 3:54 pm, Orval Fairbairn <orfairba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <YIKdnZFWydSB0e3MnZ2dnUVZ_h2dn...@earthlink.com>,
> No -- then they will use another "Progressive" scam: public transit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
or free bicycles.
> In article <YIKdnZFWydSB0e3MnZ2dnUVZ_h2dn...@earthlink.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
or free bicycles.
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Apr 18, 2013, 7:28:53 PM4/18/13
to
firearms. Obama is the best firearm salesman on the planet, bar none.
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 7:56:46 PM4/18/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:CuydnQF8eb1U6e3M...@giganews.com...
> On 4/18/2013 5:17 PM, Scout wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>>>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>>>
>>>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>>>> expensive.
>>>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>>>
>>>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>>>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be
>>>> required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
> [snip]
>
>>> Good grief.
>>> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>>> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>>> :-/
>>
>> It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
>
> Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for the
> firearms industry, ought to be opposing this.
Sorry, but your delusions about the functions of the NRA do not make
> [snip]
>>>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>>>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>>>
>>>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>>>> expensive.
>>>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>>>
>>>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
>>>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be
>>>> required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
> [snip]
>
>>> Good grief.
>>> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>>> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>>> :-/
>>
>> It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
>
> Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for the
> firearms industry, ought to be opposing this.
reality.
David R. Birch
Apr 18, 2013, 8:14:23 PM4/18/13
to
primary role is simply wrong.
David
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 8:27:46 PM4/18/13
to
became the lobbying arm of the firearms industry. They have overlapping
board of directors memberships, and the NRA has, through their "Ring of
Freedom" program, which the NRA described as "geared towards your
company’s corporate interests” raked in tens of millions of dollars from
the firearms industry, including Beretta, Glock and Sturm, Ruger.
Nonetheless, the NRA continues to lie that it "is not affiliated with
any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal
in guns and ammunition.”
But I quit when I found them officially endorsing a Republican candidate
over a conservative Democratic incumbent who actually had a better
record of upholding 2nd Amendment rights than his Republican challenger.
Since then, they have fallen even further, to a new low of
intentionally spreading lies to, among other things, whip up hysteria
and drive up firearm sales.
-----
"NRA Under Fire for ‘Lying’ about Manchin-Toomey Amendment: Did They?
4/18/13 | by S.H. Blannelberry
Yesterday was a heartbreaking day for gun control advocates around the
country. After trying so desperately hard to reform the nation’s gun
laws, they failed.
The centerpiece of President Obama’s plan to reduce gun-related
violence, an expanded background check amendment drafted by Sens. Joe
Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) failed to get the 60 votes it
needed to clear the Senate. But in the wake of this crushing defeat,
those who’ve pushed for tougher gun laws in the wake of the mass
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, are crying
foul, claiming that the National Rifle Association lied about the
Manchin-Toomey amendment to cow lawmakers into voting against it.
At a Wednesday press conference at the White House, an exasperated
President Obama rebuked the nation’s gun lobby, saying they “willfully
lied on this bill.”
“Unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this
legislation served a purpose. Those lies upset an intense minority of
gun owners and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators,” Obama said.
“There were no coherent arguments as to why we shouldn’t do this, it
came down to politics.”
So is this allegation true? Did the NRA lie about the Manchin-Toomey
amendment, which is officially known as “The Public Safety and Second
Amendment Rights Protection Act?”
Well, in recent press release, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox
wrote the following about the M-T amendment.
Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S.
Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers
of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends,
neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission
to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution.
However, according to the M-T amendment, only transfers at gun shows or
over the Internet would require a FFL-facilitated background check,
“family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other
individuals) are exempt from background checks.”
So, bottom line, did the NRA tell a lie? It appears so."
http://www.guns.com/2013/04/18/nra-under-fire-for-lying-about-manchin-toomey-amendment-did-they-video/
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 8:56:17 PM4/18/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
Like I said your delusions don't determine the reality.
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 9:15:20 PM4/18/13
to
doesn't make you any less wrong.
> Like I said your delusions don't determine the reality.
to be deluded is not unexpected.
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 9:21:35 PM4/18/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
opposing this measure.
Since they are not, then clearly you're wrong about their position.
QED.
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 9:27:20 PM4/18/13
to
legislation, or what reasons they may base their position on. Maybe
they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate sales of
ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for later new
firearms purchases.
> QED.
Not.
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 9:29:42 PM4/18/13
to
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 10:14:00 PM4/18/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
know what they should do on this pending legislation and we know the reasons
they would base that decision on if as you claim they are a lobbying arms of
the firearms industry.
So, if you're saying we don't know what they would do and why....then your
assertion they are a lobbying arm of the firearms industry is without merit
because clearly that isn't what they are.
> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate sales
> of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for later new
> firearms purchases.
market, and the utterly insignificant numbers of useable guns that show up
at these buybacks. But let's assume for some unknown reason they actually
wanted to get more used guns into the market...then by your own reasoning
wouldn't the NRA be pushing these buybacks, and even organizing their own?
Sorry, but your assertion doesn't reflect the events in reality. As such
your assertion fails even the most basic tests of it's validity.
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 10:15:50 PM4/18/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
Sheese, first you tell us why you think they do things they do....then you
claim we don't really know what they are going to do or why.
Make up your mind.
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 10:35:31 PM4/18/13
to
single incident, the proposed sales of buy-back guns, to negate a far
broader proposition, that the NRA lobbies for the firearms industry.
That proposition is NOT "the NRA lobbies for the firearms industry at
all times and places, and in every incident where any firearm industry
interest may somehow be impacted."
More importantly, you are ignoring, and you snipped out, the NRA's own
description of their efforts as "geared towards your company’s corporate
interests," which certainly accords with my proposition.
>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate
>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for
>> later new firearms purchases.
>
> That's reaching,
buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general public.
> given the vast amount of used firearms already on the
> market,
the market, riiiigght.
> and the utterly insignificant numbers of useable guns that show
> up at these buybacks. But let's assume for some unknown reason they
> actually wanted to get more used guns into the market...then by your own
> reasoning wouldn't the NRA be pushing these buybacks, and even
> organizing their own?
whack-jobs up there. Certainly, they don't mind helping out gun
dealers, which will be the only buyers of these guns at, we may presume,
a significant discount followed by a healthy markup to retail customers.
> Sorry, but your assertion doesn't reflect the events in reality. As such
> your assertion fails even the most basic tests of it's validity.
Scout
Apr 18, 2013, 11:14:37 PM4/18/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 11:24:20 PM4/18/13
to
On 4/18/2013 9:15 PM, Scout wrote:
[snip]
people who do not think their every personal opinion is necessarily
therefore an established fact. However, I do recognize the difference
between what I think the NRA is up to, and what they factually and
objectively are up to.
I agree with Adolphus A. Busch, IV about the NRA:
"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was
established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places
priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while
disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."
http://www.ksdk.com/assetpool/documents/130418042829_Read%20Adolphus%20Busch%20IV%27s%20letter%20to%20NRA.pdf
[snip]
> Sheese, first you tell us why you think they do things they do....then
> you claim we don't really know what they are going to do or why.
I think I see the problem you are having here. You are unaccustomed to
> you claim we don't really know what they are going to do or why.
people who do not think their every personal opinion is necessarily
therefore an established fact. However, I do recognize the difference
between what I think the NRA is up to, and what they factually and
objectively are up to.
I agree with Adolphus A. Busch, IV about the NRA:
"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was
established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places
priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while
disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."
http://www.ksdk.com/assetpool/documents/130418042829_Read%20Adolphus%20Busch%20IV%27s%20letter%20to%20NRA.pdf
Jeff M
Apr 18, 2013, 11:28:14 PM4/18/13
to
Scout
Apr 19, 2013, 12:04:12 AM4/19/13
to
"Jeff M" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
> On 4/18/2013 9:15 PM, Scout wrote:
> [snip]
>> Sheese, first you tell us why you think they do things they do....then
>> you claim we don't really know what they are going to do or why.
>
> I think I see the problem you are having here. You are unaccustomed to
> people who do not think their every personal opinion is necessarily
> therefore an established fact. However, I do recognize the difference
> between what I think the NRA is up to, and what they factually and
> objectively are up to.
So it's just your opinion. If you had simply indicated that rather than
> [snip]
>> Sheese, first you tell us why you think they do things they do....then
>> you claim we don't really know what they are going to do or why.
>
> I think I see the problem you are having here. You are unaccustomed to
> people who do not think their every personal opinion is necessarily
> therefore an established fact. However, I do recognize the difference
> between what I think the NRA is up to, and what they factually and
> objectively are up to.
declaring it in the form of a fact we both could have been saved some time.
IOW, when it's a matter of opinion you need to consider noting it as such.
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 12:33:21 AM4/19/13
to
as an opinion, of one specific incident, but many more facts about the
NRA. Any difficulty you're having is entirely your own problem.
Repeatedly pretending not to understand the obvious is a very weak
tactic, but one often employed by those who know they are on the wrong
side of the facts.
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 19, 2013, 1:18:59 AM4/19/13
to
On Apr 18, 6:28 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"
> firearms. Obama is the best firearm salesman on the planet, bar none.- Hide quoted text -
all the guns they want?
You do realize that you gun loons are really looking stupid to the
normal American.
TMT
>
> - Show quoted text -
So why are gun loons worried about their gun rights when they can buy
> - Show quoted text -
all the guns they want?
You do realize that you gun loons are really looking stupid to the
normal American.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 19, 2013, 1:20:25 AM4/19/13
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Scout is a well known liar...and strawman buyer.
> - Show quoted text -
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 19, 2013, 1:22:02 AM4/19/13
to
On Apr 18, 10:14 pm, "Scout"
> Then the NRA isn't the lobby arm of the firearms industry.- Hide quoted text -
They are the industry's bitches..just like you being their bitch.
TMT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes they are.
> - Show quoted text -
They are the industry's bitches..just like you being their bitch.
TMT
Sanders Kaufman
Apr 19, 2013, 2:07:11 AM4/19/13
to
cartoon shows, you would realize you are not among the normal Americans.
Sloth, malingering, begging, stealing and stupidity is not normal. You
are a Democrat.
Sanders Kaufman
Apr 19, 2013, 2:08:46 AM4/19/13
to
rectum and give you freebies.
Sanders Kaufman
Apr 19, 2013, 2:09:37 AM4/19/13
to
rbowman
Apr 19, 2013, 10:01:46 AM4/19/13
to
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> You do realize that you gun loons are really looking stupid to the
> normal American.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_%28behavior%29
> You do realize that you gun loons are really looking stupid to the
> normal American.
>
"Normal is also used to describe when someone's behaviour conforms to the
most common behaviour in society (known as conforming to the norm)."
Personally, I prefer to be an uncommon person and would rather not live in a
mediocracy.
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 2:49:11 PM4/19/13
to
On 4/19/2013 12:22 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
[snip]
clients in the firearms industry with a promise to promote "your
company’s corporate interests.” They are lobbyists, doing the work
lobbyists do.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Lots of corporations and
associations of corporations within in the same industry employ paid
lobbyists to promote their interests. Indeed, it would be
irresponsible, even foolish, for the firearms industry not to have
lobbyists working for them.
The dishonesty, even fraud, comes in because the NRA falsely presents
itself as a representing the interests of it's gun owner members.
Clearly, it does not. A large majority of NRA members want background
check requirements to be tightened. The NRA itself, in the past, before
it became the firearms industry's mouthpiece, even approved and endorsed
this. But not now. The NRA has turned its back to its members.
They chose their corporate clients over their own membership. But they
are collecting dues from those members under the pretext that they will
use the money to promote their members' interests, then diverting the
money to use to lobby for the interests of their corporate clients. I'm
sure the senior managers or directors of large firearms corporations
sitting on the NRA board of board of directors see no problem with this,
but it is dishonest, fraudulent and unethical. NRA members are being
lied to, defrauded and manipulated, but otherwise ignored, especially
when it comes to promoting gun owner interests.
[snip]
>> Then the NRA isn't the lobby arm of the firearms industry.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>
> Yes they are.
>
> They are the industry's bitches..just like you being their bitch.
They admit as much themselves. They actively recruit new corporate
>
> They are the industry's bitches..just like you being their bitch.
clients in the firearms industry with a promise to promote "your
company’s corporate interests.” They are lobbyists, doing the work
lobbyists do.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Lots of corporations and
associations of corporations within in the same industry employ paid
lobbyists to promote their interests. Indeed, it would be
irresponsible, even foolish, for the firearms industry not to have
lobbyists working for them.
The dishonesty, even fraud, comes in because the NRA falsely presents
itself as a representing the interests of it's gun owner members.
Clearly, it does not. A large majority of NRA members want background
check requirements to be tightened. The NRA itself, in the past, before
it became the firearms industry's mouthpiece, even approved and endorsed
this. But not now. The NRA has turned its back to its members.
They chose their corporate clients over their own membership. But they
are collecting dues from those members under the pretext that they will
use the money to promote their members' interests, then diverting the
money to use to lobby for the interests of their corporate clients. I'm
sure the senior managers or directors of large firearms corporations
sitting on the NRA board of board of directors see no problem with this,
but it is dishonest, fraudulent and unethical. NRA members are being
lied to, defrauded and manipulated, but otherwise ignored, especially
when it comes to promoting gun owner interests.
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 2:59:56 PM4/19/13
to
RD Sandman
Apr 19, 2013, 3:01:38 PM4/19/13
to
Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:CuydnQF8eb1U6e3MnZ2dnUVZ_t-
dn...@giganews.com:
> On 4/18/2013 5:17 PM, Scout wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>>>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>>>
>>>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>>>> expensive.
>>>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>>>
>>>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of
firearms
>>>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be
>>>> required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
> [snip]
>
>>> Good grief.
>>> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>>> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>>> :-/
>>
>> It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
>
> Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for
the
manufacturers? The only ones I am aware of are the dollied up ones that
they advertize in the magazine.
--
Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,
And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
dn...@giganews.com:
> On 4/18/2013 5:17 PM, Scout wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
>>>> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>>>>
>>>> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too
>>>> expensive.
>>>> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>>>>
>>>> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of
firearms
>>>> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be
>>>> required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
> [snip]
>
>>> Good grief.
>>> What is the point of a gun buyback if you just resell them?
>>> Hell, a pawn shop does that every day.
>>> :-/
>>
>> It makes sure the guns are back in the hands of legal owners?
>
> Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for
the
> firearms industry, ought to be opposing this. I would expect the
resale
> of so many used guns to possibly undercut the profits to be earned from
> selling more new guns.
>
>
What gives you the idea that the NRA profits from the sales of guns from
resale
> of so many used guns to possibly undercut the profits to be earned from
> selling more new guns.
>
>
manufacturers? The only ones I am aware of are the dollied up ones that
they advertize in the magazine.
--
Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,
And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 3:20:25 PM4/19/13
to
firearms industry. The Firearms industry has paid the NRA millions of
dollars in return. This link has a nice interactive graph with more
details:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/the-nras-corporate-donors
My hypothesis was that the NRA's clients, the firearms industry, could
lose sales and profits if too many used guns were dumped on the market.
If so, we and they might expect the NRA to oppose such a plan. But
perhaps they either see it as no threat to their own sales of new
firearms, or possibly even as a boon to the firearms industry from
increased ammunition and accessory sales.
RD Sandman
Apr 19, 2013, 3:30:31 PM4/19/13
to
Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:yJydnXu-
rPrqMO3MnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>
>>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate
>>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for
>>> later new firearms purchases.
>>
>> That's reaching,
>
> No, it's not. If I understand correctly, the proposed law requires
that
> buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general public.
Yes, so that those dealer can re-sell those guns to the general public.
Did you think they were giong to destroy them? They want those guns to
remain in circulation and be owned by the law abiding public.
>> given the vast amount of used firearms already on the
>> market,
>
> Yeah, now is the time when gun owners are dumping all their firearms on
> the market, riiiigght.
Some of them do in gun buybacks.
>> and the utterly insignificant numbers of useable guns that show
>> up at these buybacks. But let's assume for some unknown reason they
>> actually wanted to get more used guns into the market...then by your
own
>> reasoning wouldn't the NRA be pushing these buybacks, and even
>> organizing their own?
>
> No one knows why the NRA does what it does. They clearly have some
real
> whack-jobs up there. Certainly, they don't mind helping out gun
> dealers, which will be the only buyers of these guns at, we may
presume,
> a significant discount followed by a healthy markup to retail
customers.
Of course. You can't make money buying high and selling low.
rPrqMO3MnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>
>>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate
>>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for
>>> later new firearms purchases.
>>
>> That's reaching,
>
> No, it's not. If I understand correctly, the proposed law requires
that
> buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general public.
Did you think they were giong to destroy them? They want those guns to
remain in circulation and be owned by the law abiding public.
>> given the vast amount of used firearms already on the
>> market,
>
> Yeah, now is the time when gun owners are dumping all their firearms on
> the market, riiiigght.
>> and the utterly insignificant numbers of useable guns that show
>> up at these buybacks. But let's assume for some unknown reason they
>> actually wanted to get more used guns into the market...then by your
own
>> reasoning wouldn't the NRA be pushing these buybacks, and even
>> organizing their own?
>
> No one knows why the NRA does what it does. They clearly have some
real
> whack-jobs up there. Certainly, they don't mind helping out gun
> dealers, which will be the only buyers of these guns at, we may
presume,
> a significant discount followed by a healthy markup to retail
customers.
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 4:18:17 PM4/19/13
to
On 4/19/2013 2:30 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:yJydnXu-
> rPrqMO3MnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>>>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate
>>>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for
>>>> later new firearms purchases.
>>>
>>> That's reaching,
>>
>> No, it's not. If I understand correctly, the proposed law requires
> that
>> buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general public.
>
> Yes, so that those dealer can re-sell those guns to the general public.
> Did you think they were giong to destroy them?
No, obviously. Did you?
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:yJydnXu-
> rPrqMO3MnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>>>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate
>>>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers for
>>>> later new firearms purchases.
>>>
>>> That's reaching,
>>
>> No, it's not. If I understand correctly, the proposed law requires
> that
>> buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general public.
>
> Yes, so that those dealer can re-sell those guns to the general public.
> Did you think they were giong to destroy them?
> They want those guns to
> remain in circulation and be owned by the law abiding public.
>
>>> given the vast amount of used firearms already on the
>>> market,
>>
>> Yeah, now is the time when gun owners are dumping all their firearms on
>> the market, riiiigght.
>
> Some of them do in gun buybacks.
or a few thousands, at most, out of millions. I strongly suspect the
cops seize far more firearms for various reasons than they obtain from
buy-backs.
>>> and the utterly insignificant numbers of useable guns that show
>>> up at these buybacks. But let's assume for some unknown reason they
>>> actually wanted to get more used guns into the market...then by your
> own
>>> reasoning wouldn't the NRA be pushing these buybacks, and even
>>> organizing their own?
>>
>> No one knows why the NRA does what it does. They clearly have some
> real
>> whack-jobs up there. Certainly, they don't mind helping out gun
>> dealers, which will be the only buyers of these guns at, we may
> presume,
>> a significant discount followed by a healthy markup to retail
> customers.
>
> Of course. You can't make money buying high and selling low.
RD Sandman
Apr 19, 2013, 4:49:19 PM4/19/13
to
Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in
news:IdKdna7JKYdhBezM...@giganews.com:
> My hypothesis was that the NRA's clients, the firearms industry, could
> lose sales and profits if too many used guns were dumped on the market.
even the government says that they are a ridiculous attempt at gun
control although not in so many words. You can find that in a paper put
out by the DOJ entitled: Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't,
What's Promising. Sorry don't have a URL off the top of my head.
Oh.....wait.....yes, I do:
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/171676.pdf
See if that works......it was handwritten on my copy of the report.
> If so, we and they might expect the NRA to oppose such a plan. But
> perhaps they either see it as no threat to their own sales of new
> firearms,
than those gussied up ones that they claim are for special occasions or
commemorations.
or possibly even as a boon to the firearms industry from
> increased ammunition and accessory sales.
even fire or are in such bad shape that I wouldn't fire them. You are
talking about an industry that sells between 4 and 6 million of its
product every year and they would be worried about a pitiful few beat up
guns coming on the market?
> The only ones I am aware of are the dollied up ones that
>> they advertize in the magazine.
>>
>
>
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 4:56:34 PM4/19/13
to
impact of such sales is likely miniscule in terms of the overall market.
RD Sandman
Apr 19, 2013, 4:59:31 PM4/19/13
to
Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:G9-dnRE7t58RO-
zMnZ2dnUV...@giganews.com:
> On 4/19/2013 2:30 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:yJydnXu-
>> rPrqMO3MnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will
stimulate
>>>>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers
for
>>>>> later new firearms purchases.
>>>>
>>>> That's reaching,
>>>
>>> No, it's not. If I understand correctly, the proposed law requires
>> that
>>> buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general
public.
>>
>> Yes, so that those dealer can re-sell those guns to the general
public.
>> Did you think they were giong to destroy them?
>
> No, obviously. Did you?
Nope, not being able to destroy them has been in Arizona law for some
time.
>> They want those guns to
>> remain in circulation and be owned by the law abiding public.
>>
>>>> given the vast amount of used firearms already on the
>>>> market,
>>>
>>> Yeah, now is the time when gun owners are dumping all their firearms
on
>>> the market, riiiigght.
>>
>> Some of them do in gun buybacks.
>
> Very, very few,
Yep, which was the point.
as a percentage of total guns and gun owners, hundreds
> or a few thousands, at most, out of millions. I strongly suspect the
> cops seize far more firearms for various reasons than they obtain from
> buy-backs.
At least ones that work.
zMnZ2dnUV...@giganews.com:
> On 4/19/2013 2:30 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:yJydnXu-
>> rPrqMO3MnZ2d...@giganews.com:
>>
>>>
>>>>> Maybe they think that the resale of buy-back firearms will
stimulate
>>>>> sales of ammunition or accessories, or will create new customers
for
>>>>> later new firearms purchases.
>>>>
>>>> That's reaching,
>>>
>>> No, it's not. If I understand correctly, the proposed law requires
>> that
>>> buy- back guns be sold to licensed gun dealers, not the general
public.
>>
>> Yes, so that those dealer can re-sell those guns to the general
public.
>> Did you think they were giong to destroy them?
>
> No, obviously. Did you?
time.
>> They want those guns to
>> remain in circulation and be owned by the law abiding public.
>>
>>>> given the vast amount of used firearms already on the
>>>> market,
>>>
>>> Yeah, now is the time when gun owners are dumping all their firearms
on
>>> the market, riiiigght.
>>
>> Some of them do in gun buybacks.
>
> Very, very few,
as a percentage of total guns and gun owners, hundreds
> or a few thousands, at most, out of millions. I strongly suspect the
> cops seize far more firearms for various reasons than they obtain from
> buy-backs.
David R. Birch
Apr 19, 2013, 8:37:08 PM4/19/13
to
On 4/18/2013 8:29 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>> Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for the
>>> firearms industry, ought to be opposing this. I would expect the resale
>>> of so many used guns to possibly undercut the profits to be earned from
>>> selling more new guns.
>>>
>> Yet you can't make the connection that your premise about the NRA's
>> primary role is simply wrong.
>
> We don't know what the NRA may do about the pending legislation, or what
> reasons they may base their position on. Maybe they think that the
> resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate sales of ammunition or
> accessories, or will create new customers for later new firearms purchases.
Like other gun controllers, you have the advantage of not needing to
>>> Very odd. The NRA, in it's primary role as the leading lobbyist for the
>>> firearms industry, ought to be opposing this. I would expect the resale
>>> of so many used guns to possibly undercut the profits to be earned from
>>> selling more new guns.
>>>
>> Yet you can't make the connection that your premise about the NRA's
>> primary role is simply wrong.
>
> We don't know what the NRA may do about the pending legislation, or what
> reasons they may base their position on. Maybe they think that the
> resale of buy-back firearms will stimulate sales of ammunition or
> accessories, or will create new customers for later new firearms purchases.
base your positions on reason.
David
Jeff M
Apr 19, 2013, 8:52:25 PM4/19/13
to
regressives, who actively reject fact and reason in preference for
propaganda and dogma. Also, your assumption that I am a "gun
controller" is incorrect and indicates your thinking in stereotypes,
unless by "gun controller" you meant that I have a good stance, sight
picture, posture, grip, etc.
Winston_Smith
Apr 28, 2013, 3:33:09 PM4/28/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
>up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
>states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>
>They've made it a free-for-all.
Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
want to bother stopping, would it?
I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
>up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
>states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>
>They've made it a free-for-all.
Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
want to bother stopping, would it?
I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
Ed Huntress
Apr 28, 2013, 5:46:12 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:33:09 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>>all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
>>up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
>>states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>>
>>They've made it a free-for-all.
>
>Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
>illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
>want to bother stopping, would it?
I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>>all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
>>up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
>>states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>>
>>They've made it a free-for-all.
>
>Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
>illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
>want to bother stopping, would it?
drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
>
>I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
>think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
*that's* a business-friendly state.
>
>Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
supplies to cross-border gun runners?
--
Ed Huntress
Richard
Apr 28, 2013, 6:47:27 AM4/28/13
to
RogerN
Apr 28, 2013, 7:12:00 PM4/28/13
to
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:9s5rn81ln7s23102t...@4ax.com...
<snip>
blaming in on the gun shops Obama ordered to sell them the guns.
RogerN
news:9s5rn81ln7s23102t...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
>>illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
>>want to bother stopping, would it?
>
>I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
>drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
>Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
>
>>
>>I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
>>think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
>
>So when Arizona says they're small-business friendly, they're
>including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
>collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
>*that's* a business-friendly state.
>
>>
>>Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
>
>'Don't know. Compared to Arizona, how many guns do you think Illinois
>supplies to cross-border gun runners?
>
>--
>Ed Huntress
Wow, Ed goes from defending Obama's illegal operation "Fast and Furious" to
>>illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
>>want to bother stopping, would it?
>
>I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
>drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
>Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
>
>>
>>I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
>>think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
>
>So when Arizona says they're small-business friendly, they're
>including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
>collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
>*that's* a business-friendly state.
>
>>
>>Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
>
>'Don't know. Compared to Arizona, how many guns do you think Illinois
>supplies to cross-border gun runners?
>
>--
>Ed Huntress
blaming in on the gun shops Obama ordered to sell them the guns.
RogerN
RD Sandman
Apr 28, 2013, 10:28:19 PM4/28/13
to
"RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote in
news:2vCdnTsS0c9YMeDM...@earthlink.com:
None of the shops were under orders to sell those guns....it was just a
strong suggestion when they called the local F Troop.
--
can't be old without it.
news:2vCdnTsS0c9YMeDM...@earthlink.com:
strong suggestion when they called the local F Troop.
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman
You can be young without money, but you
RD (The Sandman
can't be old without it.
Scout
Apr 28, 2013, 10:49:36 PM4/28/13
to
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B0C614B...@216.196.121.131...
example Randy Weaver whom the ATF strongly suggested he inform for them.
Na, I suspect their "strong suggestion" would tend to amount to something
more like blackmail.
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 28, 2013, 11:00:26 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 19, 2:01 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
> RD (The Sandman)- Hide quoted text -
Want to buy a bridge in New York?
TMT
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...you really are naive aren't you?
> - Show quoted text -
Want to buy a bridge in New York?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 28, 2013, 11:03:25 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 19, 2:30 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
LOL..thought only junk guns were traded in..that's what the gun loons
say.
Are you saying that they are liars?
TMT
wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in news:yJydnXu-
> rPrqMO3MnZ2dnUVZ_sOdn...@giganews.com:
say.
Are you saying that they are liars?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 28, 2013, 11:05:14 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 19, 3:49 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote innews:IdKdna7JKYdhBezM...@giganews.com:
they don't work?
Are you saying that gun loons are crazy?
Sounds like it.
TMT
wrote:
> Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote innews:IdKdna7JKYdhBezM...@giganews.com:
> RD (The Sandman)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you are saying that gun loons worry about gun buy backs because
>
> - Show quoted text -
they don't work?
Are you saying that gun loons are crazy?
Sounds like it.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 28, 2013, 11:07:21 PM4/28/13
to
On Apr 28, 9:49 pm, "Scout"
> more like blackmail.- Hide quoted text -
TMT
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...poor little Randy Weaver...got what he deserved.
> - Show quoted text -
TMT
Winston_Smith
Apr 28, 2013, 11:12:23 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:00:26 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Want to buy a bridge in New York?
Probably mortgaged to ten times what it's worth and no clear title.
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Want to buy a bridge in New York?
Winston_Smith
Apr 28, 2013, 11:20:10 PM4/28/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:46:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
diffuses to supply all the states, taking the tools of their trade,
guns, with them. If the border were controlled there wouldn't be that
illegal traffic and no reason for the guns to migrate.
>>I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
>>think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
>
>So when Arizona says they're small-business friendly, they're
>including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
>collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
>*that's* a business-friendly state.
>
>>Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
>
>'Don't know. Compared to Arizona, how many guns do you think Illinois
>supplies to cross-border gun runners?
The guns go with the criminals. They transport contraband from the
border to all states. A fact you conveniently overlook. The other
states do not send contraband into Mexico. Can you really not see that
the one way traffic is enabled by government's lax control of the
border?
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:33:09 -0700, Winston_Smith
><inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>>>all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
>>>up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
>>>states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>>>
>>>They've made it a free-for-all.
>>
>>Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
>>illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
>>want to bother stopping, would it?
>
>I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
>drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
>Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
You miss the point. That is where the illegal traffic starts. It
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:33:09 -0700, Winston_Smith
><inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
>><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
>>>all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
>>>up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
>>>states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>>>
>>>They've made it a free-for-all.
>>
>>Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
>>illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
>>want to bother stopping, would it?
>
>I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
>drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
>Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
diffuses to supply all the states, taking the tools of their trade,
guns, with them. If the border were controlled there wouldn't be that
illegal traffic and no reason for the guns to migrate.
>>I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
>>think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
>
>So when Arizona says they're small-business friendly, they're
>including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
>collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
>*that's* a business-friendly state.
>
>>Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
>
>'Don't know. Compared to Arizona, how many guns do you think Illinois
>supplies to cross-border gun runners?
border to all states. A fact you conveniently overlook. The other
states do not send contraband into Mexico. Can you really not see that
the one way traffic is enabled by government's lax control of the
border?
Ed Huntress
Apr 29, 2013, 12:40:35 AM4/29/13
to
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:20:10 -0700, Winston_Smith
I don't see it because the evidence doesn't support it.
To be fair, I should have pointed out that the crime-gun export/import
ratio of Arizona, at 1.5:1, is only middling. Some are much higher. In
terms of crime guns "exported" to other states, and recovered there
and traced, Arizona is only 11th, at 19.5 guns/100,000 inhabitants.
The highest is West Virginia (41.0), followed by Mississippi (39.0),
South Carolina (30.6), Kentucky (29.7), Alabama (29.4), and Virginia
(29.3).
In most of those states, it's the lack of regulations on private sales
and (in the cases of Virginia and South Carolina, which are big
suppliers of crime guns to the Northeast) pockets of crooked FFLs.
In most states, it isn't because of borders and it's only peripherally
connected with drugs, perhaps supplying drug dealers but also
indiscriminantly supplying a variety of other types of criminals.
So the evidence taken as a whole connects it to a lack of regulations
on gun sales and to a criminal element of FFLs and straw purchasers.
Arizona makes it into the top 11 and has a typical pattern of lax
gun-sale regulation. It's possible that the borders have something to
do with it but the evidence all points to the common fact among the
top crime-gun "exporting" states: no sales record, no ID, and no
qualifications for private purchases.
--
Ed Huntress
To be fair, I should have pointed out that the crime-gun export/import
ratio of Arizona, at 1.5:1, is only middling. Some are much higher. In
terms of crime guns "exported" to other states, and recovered there
and traced, Arizona is only 11th, at 19.5 guns/100,000 inhabitants.
The highest is West Virginia (41.0), followed by Mississippi (39.0),
South Carolina (30.6), Kentucky (29.7), Alabama (29.4), and Virginia
(29.3).
In most of those states, it's the lack of regulations on private sales
and (in the cases of Virginia and South Carolina, which are big
suppliers of crime guns to the Northeast) pockets of crooked FFLs.
In most states, it isn't because of borders and it's only peripherally
connected with drugs, perhaps supplying drug dealers but also
indiscriminantly supplying a variety of other types of criminals.
So the evidence taken as a whole connects it to a lack of regulations
on gun sales and to a criminal element of FFLs and straw purchasers.
Arizona makes it into the top 11 and has a typical pattern of lax
gun-sale regulation. It's possible that the borders have something to
do with it but the evidence all points to the common fact among the
top crime-gun "exporting" states: no sales record, no ID, and no
qualifications for private purchases.
--
Ed Huntress
rbowman
Apr 29, 2013, 12:58:48 AM4/29/13
to
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> So you are saying that gun loons worry about gun buy backs because
> they don't work?
They work fine, like the gentleman who traded in a non-functioning shotgun
> So you are saying that gun loons worry about gun buy backs because
> they don't work?
for a $100 gift card. Sportsmen's Warehouse was happy to apply the gift card
to a nice new .40.
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 29, 2013, 5:04:16 AM4/29/13
to
On Apr 28, 5:47 am, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2013 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:33:09 -0700, Winston_Smith
> > <inva...@butterfly.net> wrote:
> On 4/28/2013 4:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:33:09 -0700, Winston_Smith
>
> >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
> >> <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:37:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
>
> >>> If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
> >>> all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
> >>> up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
> >>> states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>
> >>> They've made it a free-for-all.
>
> >> Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
> >> illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
> >> want to bother stopping, would it?
>
> > I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
> > drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
> > Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
>
> >> I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
> >> think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
>
> > So when Arizona says they're small-business friendly, they're
> > including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
> > collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
> > *that's* a business-friendly state.
>
> >> Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
>
> > 'Don't know. Compared to Arizona, how many guns do you think Illinois
> > supplies to cross-border gun runners?
>
> Not near as many as Fast And Furious...- Hide quoted text -
> >>> If you look at their gun laws, you'll see that Arizona has forfeited
> >>> all thoughts of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They gave
> >>> up. That's why they "export" 50% more guns used in crimes to other
> >>> states, than other states "export" them to Arizona.
>
> >>> They've made it a free-for-all.
>
> >> Wouldn't have anything to do with the Mexican border and all the
> >> illegal migrant and drug running neither the Rs nor the Ds seem to
> >> want to bother stopping, would it?
>
> > I doubt it, because they've made it easy for any illegal migrant or
> > drug runner to get a gun. They even cross the border to buy them in
> > Arizona. Hee-haw! It's a free-for-all. Guns for everyone!
>
> >> I mean those guys probably never think of having guns and they never
> >> think of moving their "merchandize" to other states, do they?
>
> > So when Arizona says they're small-business friendly, they're
> > including illegal aliens who can set up a straw-buying shop,
> > collecting them in private sales, with no way to trace them. Now
> > *that's* a business-friendly state.
>
> >> Just how much drugs does, oh, say Illinois, smuggle into Mexico?
>
> > 'Don't know. Compared to Arizona, how many guns do you think Illinois
> > supplies to cross-border gun runners?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fast and Furious.. the illegal gun operation that Bush ran.
> - Show quoted text -
TMT
RD Sandman
Apr 29, 2013, 3:08:57 PM4/29/13
to
Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:dgtrn89j9p6d8vqnl...@4ax.com:
In any case, purchasing guns by non resident or selling guns to non
residents is still breaking federal law. Regulation is there, it is
simply ignored like other laws are.
> In most states, it isn't because of borders and it's only peripherally
> connected with drugs, perhaps supplying drug dealers but also
> indiscriminantly supplying a variety of other types of criminals.
>
> So the evidence taken as a whole connects it to a lack of regulations
> on gun sales and to a criminal element of FFLs and straw purchasers.
> Arizona makes it into the top 11 and has a typical pattern of lax
> gun-sale regulation. It's possible that the borders have something to
> do with it but the evidence all points to the common fact among the
> top crime-gun "exporting" states: no sales record, no ID, and no
> qualifications for private purchases.
That is true for straw sales. It makes no difference if it crosses a
state line or not it is still illlegal.
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
news:dgtrn89j9p6d8vqnl...@4ax.com:
residents is still breaking federal law. Regulation is there, it is
simply ignored like other laws are.
> In most states, it isn't because of borders and it's only peripherally
> connected with drugs, perhaps supplying drug dealers but also
> indiscriminantly supplying a variety of other types of criminals.
>
> So the evidence taken as a whole connects it to a lack of regulations
> on gun sales and to a criminal element of FFLs and straw purchasers.
> Arizona makes it into the top 11 and has a typical pattern of lax
> gun-sale regulation. It's possible that the borders have something to
> do with it but the evidence all points to the common fact among the
> top crime-gun "exporting" states: no sales record, no ID, and no
> qualifications for private purchases.
state line or not it is still illlegal.
--
Sleep well, tonight.....
Ed Huntress
Apr 29, 2013, 3:46:43 PM4/29/13
to
way to enforce it. How could you convict the seller, if there's no
requirement that he even ask for ID?
That could be because the legislators who enacted those laws are not
very bright, or...no, I think that's it. <g>
>
>> In most states, it isn't because of borders and it's only peripherally
>> connected with drugs, perhaps supplying drug dealers but also
>> indiscriminantly supplying a variety of other types of criminals.
>>
>> So the evidence taken as a whole connects it to a lack of regulations
>> on gun sales and to a criminal element of FFLs and straw purchasers.
>> Arizona makes it into the top 11 and has a typical pattern of lax
>> gun-sale regulation. It's possible that the borders have something to
>> do with it but the evidence all points to the common fact among the
>> top crime-gun "exporting" states: no sales record, no ID, and no
>> qualifications for private purchases.
>
>That is true for straw sales. It makes no difference if it crosses a
>state line or not it is still illlegal.
"Arizona....it's hot, it's dry, but it's guns for all!"
--
Ed Huntress
RD Sandman
Apr 29, 2013, 5:13:43 PM4/29/13
to
Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:d8jtn89f4q2boib53...@4ax.com:
>>> In most states, it isn't because of borders and it's only
peripherally
>>> connected with drugs, perhaps supplying drug dealers but also
>>> indiscriminantly supplying a variety of other types of criminals.
>>>
>>> So the evidence taken as a whole connects it to a lack of regulations
>>> on gun sales and to a criminal element of FFLs and straw purchasers.
>>> Arizona makes it into the top 11 and has a typical pattern of lax
>>> gun-sale regulation. It's possible that the borders have something to
>>> do with it but the evidence all points to the common fact among the
>>> top crime-gun "exporting" states: no sales record, no ID, and no
>>> qualifications for private purchases.
>>
>>That is true for straw sales. It makes no difference if it crosses a
>>state line or not it is still illlegal.
>
> Oh, so how do you catch the straw seller? Um....er....
>
> "Arizona....it's hot, it's dry, but it's guns for all!"
Ed Huntress
Apr 29, 2013, 6:02:37 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
Now THERE'S a good argument for a national law.
--
Ed Huntress
--
Ed Huntress
Richard
Apr 29, 2013, 10:03:50 AM4/29/13
to
On 4/29/2013 5:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "Arizona....it's hot, it's dry, but it's guns for all!"
>>
>> No more than 34 other states.
>
> Now THERE'S a good argument for a national law.
>
Ok, we've pretty well beaten this dead horse to death.
>>> "Arizona....it's hot, it's dry, but it's guns for all!"
>>
>> No more than 34 other states.
>
> Now THERE'S a good argument for a national law.
>
So, since it's for the chillens, how about those drone strikes?
Should they be under nation law as well?
Or just let the CIA do what it feel is right?
Ed Huntress
Apr 29, 2013, 10:31:06 PM4/29/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:03:50 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>On 4/29/2013 5:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>> "Arizona....it's hot, it's dry, but it's guns for all!"
>>>
>>> No more than 34 other states.
>>
>> Now THERE'S a good argument for a national law.
>>
>
>Ok, we've pretty well beaten this dead horse to death.
>
>So, since it's for the chillens, how about those drone strikes?
>
>Should they be under nation law as well?
Hell, yes!
>
>Or just let the CIA do what it feel is right?
Speaking of horses, did I ever tell you that my great uncle used to
skin horses on his front lawn? That was right in the middle of town,
in Greenland, NH. He wore his suit and tie while doing it.
People used to be so proper about dress...
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
>On 4/29/2013 5:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>>> "Arizona....it's hot, it's dry, but it's guns for all!"
>>>
>>> No more than 34 other states.
>>
>> Now THERE'S a good argument for a national law.
>>
>
>Ok, we've pretty well beaten this dead horse to death.
>
>So, since it's for the chillens, how about those drone strikes?
>
>Should they be under nation law as well?
>
>Or just let the CIA do what it feel is right?
skin horses on his front lawn? That was right in the middle of town,
in Greenland, NH. He wore his suit and tie while doing it.
People used to be so proper about dress...
--
Ed Huntress
John Doe
Apr 29, 2013, 10:44:13 PM4/29/13
to
speaking of Amazon...
I wonder why they didn't charge sales tax on my last order, today.
They had started charging sales tax several months ago. But,
strangely, seems that the legislation hasn't even passed Congress.
Now I'm wondering if they sent that sales tax to the state like they
were supposed to.
I'm not in a state were Amazon would usually charge sales tax.
I wonder why they didn't charge sales tax on my last order, today.
They had started charging sales tax several months ago. But,
strangely, seems that the legislation hasn't even passed Congress.
Now I'm wondering if they sent that sales tax to the state like they
were supposed to.
I'm not in a state were Amazon would usually charge sales tax.
Richard
Apr 29, 2013, 10:59:01 AM4/29/13
to
I think they were a lot more serious than today.
Ed Huntress
Apr 30, 2013, 2:07:43 AM4/30/13
to
On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:59:01 -0500, Richard <cave...@earthlink.net>
My ancestors were very serious. They're New Englanders, and they've
been plowing rocks since 1657. That will wipe the smile right off of
your face.
--
Ed Huntress
been plowing rocks since 1657. That will wipe the smile right off of
your face.
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 30, 2013, 3:11:38 AM4/30/13
to
On Apr 29, 9:31 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:03:50 -0500, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net>
You see that behavior in societies that are very class conscious.
People used to dress in their best when using machine tools...to set
themselves apart from those who were not skilled.
TMT
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:03:50 -0500, Richard <cavel...@earthlink.net>
People used to dress in their best when using machine tools...to set
themselves apart from those who were not skilled.
TMT
John Doe
Apr 30, 2013, 10:31:28 AM4/30/13
to
oops, nevermind
But off topic is off topic, I guess
But off topic is off topic, I guess
RD Sandman
Apr 30, 2013, 12:09:44 PM4/30/13
to
John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:klnb5t$d2r$2@dont-
email.me:
Amazon was part of the original ruling where it was supposed to charge
sales tax in states where it had brick & mortar presence. Arizona is one
of them since they have warehouses here. That was passed a couple years
ago. If you were not charged a sales tax for your state it was because
Amazon has no physical presence there or you have no sales tax on the
items you ordered.
The current thing on sales tax is to have those online stores charge
sales taxes, collect them, and pass them on to the state of residence for
the purchaser. It is an asinine request that will be extremely difficult
for small suppliers to comply with. Big ones like Amazon or Costco, etc.
will have no problems with it but the small ones will.
email.me:
sales tax in states where it had brick & mortar presence. Arizona is one
of them since they have warehouses here. That was passed a couple years
ago. If you were not charged a sales tax for your state it was because
Amazon has no physical presence there or you have no sales tax on the
items you ordered.
The current thing on sales tax is to have those online stores charge
sales taxes, collect them, and pass them on to the state of residence for
the purchaser. It is an asinine request that will be extremely difficult
for small suppliers to comply with. Big ones like Amazon or Costco, etc.
will have no problems with it but the small ones will.
Too_Many_Tools
Apr 30, 2013, 3:19:48 PM4/30/13
to
On Apr 17, 6:36 pm, "Ray Keller" <Lefta...@re.desperate.com> wrote:
> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>
> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>
> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>
> The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights
> Arizona on verge of turning gun buybacks into revenue
> conservativedailynews.com | 17 April, 2013 | R. Mitchell
>
> A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive.
> Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.
>
> The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms
> gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to
> sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.
>
> proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the
> Governor ?Ts office, a veto is unlikely.
>
> Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic State
> Senator Steve Gillardo argued that Arizona has ?othe most liberal gun laws
> in the nation and that has to stop. ? Clearly no friend to gun rights, Sen.
> Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments including one limiting magazine
> sizes. All of which failed.
>
> Recently the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to
> make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr
> tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston
> Marathon is reason to remove American ?Ts rights to protect themselves.
>
> Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohr ?Ts statement is
> difficult to defend.
>
> Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident.
> News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when
> told that criminals would still have them.
>
> Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In
> California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding
> citizens should have, they ?Tve been unable to get guns out of the hands of
> those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the state
> has ?oa backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm ? , says Stephen Lindley,
> chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.
>
> Maybe Arizona ?Ts Republican Senators are on to something. If citizens want
> to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could be
> great for municipalities. It ?Ts kind of a second hand store for guns where
> the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and
> maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a
> good deal. Unfortunately, criminals don ?Tt tend to turn in guns the rest of
> America actually wants to buy.
So what we see here is an admission by rightards that gun buybacks
work...why else would they be fixated upon them?
And obviously good working guns are being turned in...why else would
rightard buzzards line up to try to buy them before the buy back
program can.
Gun loons are a cult...and they are trying to save as many sex toys as
possible.
TMT
John Doe
May 1, 2013, 12:18:25 AM5/1/13
to
>> I wonder why Amazon didn't charge sales tax on my last order, today.
presence in the state.
Amazon started charging me sales tax a few months ago. I don't
know why, for some reason I assumed it was because of the
legislation that hasn't passed. But then, this last order they did
not charge sales tax (on some cat medicine and some engine oil).
If it happens again, I might try to figure out what's going on.
--
>>
>> They had started charging sales tax several months ago. But,
>> strangely, seems that the legislation hasn't even passed Congress.
>> Now I'm wondering if they sent that sales tax to the state like they
>> were supposed to.
>>
>> I'm not in a state were Amazon would usually charge sales tax.
>
> Amazon was part of the original ruling where it was supposed to charge
> sales tax in states where it had brick & mortar presence. Arizona is one
> of them since they have warehouses here. That was passed a couple years
> ago. If you were not charged a sales tax for your state it was because
> Amazon has no physical presence there or you have no sales tax on the
> items you ordered.
I am aware of the sales tax charged when a business has a physical
>> They had started charging sales tax several months ago. But,
>> strangely, seems that the legislation hasn't even passed Congress.
>> Now I'm wondering if they sent that sales tax to the state like they
>> were supposed to.
>>
>> I'm not in a state were Amazon would usually charge sales tax.
>
> Amazon was part of the original ruling where it was supposed to charge
> sales tax in states where it had brick & mortar presence. Arizona is one
> of them since they have warehouses here. That was passed a couple years
> ago. If you were not charged a sales tax for your state it was because
> Amazon has no physical presence there or you have no sales tax on the
> items you ordered.
presence in the state.
Amazon started charging me sales tax a few months ago. I don't
know why, for some reason I assumed it was because of the
legislation that hasn't passed. But then, this last order they did
not charge sales tax (on some cat medicine and some engine oil).
If it happens again, I might try to figure out what's going on.
--
Richard
May 1, 2013, 5:29:34 AM5/1/13
to
On 4/29/2013 9:31 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In upstate New York, 31 people were arrested Sunday at the Hancock
Air Force Base as they protested the killing of innocent civilians
by drone strikes they say violate the U.S. Constitution. The base
is a departure point for U.S. drones. Roughly 300 people held a
funeral procession to condemn the use of drones in Yemen, Somalia,
Pakistan and Afghanistan. The protesters were members of the
Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars. They
attempted to deliver an indictment charging President Obama, the
military and servicemembers at Hancock Air Base with crimes against
humanity.
http://www.democracynow.org
RD Sandman
May 1, 2013, 10:34:17 AM5/1/13
to
John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
news:klq52h$egp$3...@dont-email.me:
> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jd...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in news:klnb5t$d2r$2@dont-
>> email.me:
>
>>> I wonder why Amazon didn't charge sales tax on my last order, today.
>>>
>>> They had started charging sales tax several months ago. But,
>>> strangely, seems that the legislation hasn't even passed Congress.
>>> Now I'm wondering if they sent that sales tax to the state like they
>>> were supposed to.
>>>
>>> I'm not in a state were Amazon would usually charge sales tax.
>>
>> Amazon was part of the original ruling where it was supposed to
>> charge sales tax in states where it had brick & mortar presence.
>> Arizona is one of them since they have warehouses here. That was
>> your state it was because Amazon has no physical presence there or
>> you have no sales tax on the items you ordered.
>
> I am aware of the sales tax charged when a business has a physical
> presence in the state.
A physical presence does not necessarily mean a store you can go into and
>> you have no sales tax on the items you ordered.
>
> I am aware of the sales tax charged when a business has a physical
> presence in the state.
shop. It may simple be a set of warehouses that they ship from.
> Amazon started charging me sales tax a few months ago. I don't
> know why, for some reason I assumed it was because of the
> legislation that hasn't passed.
sales tax it was most likely because they have some physical presence in
the state, like a warehouse that they ship from. The new legislation
won't care if they have a physical presence or not. It will require all
online stores to charge taxes no matter what state you live in. That
means that they have to have some mechanism to know what to charge you
depending on what state you live in. Like 40 some tax levels. Easy
enough for a store like Amazon, not so easy for Joe and Mabel's coffees.
But then, this last order they did
> not charge sales tax (on some cat medicine and some engine oil).
> If it happens again, I might try to figure out what's going on.
>
--
0 new messages