Even NRA members want background checks

[Gronk]

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

[Hell Stomper]

On May 5, 7:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

You would not have a problem with guns if they were used for
abortions.
Go round up them guns, boy!

[Zepp]

Say, you really are a crazy, aren't you? Whee! Must be Usenet!

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again

Meanwhile:

NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
Posted by Scott Clement | The Washington Post
January 25, 2013 at 8:00 am

Strong majorities of National Rifle Association members reject newly
proposed gun restrictions, according to a survey released Thursday by
the gun advocacy organization.

The poll finds more than eight in 10 NRA members oppose bans on high-
capacity ammunition clips and semi-automatic assault weapons, with at
least seven in 10 opposing each “strongly.” At the same time, 91
percent support changing laws to stop people with a mental illness
from acquiring guns, and 82 percent favor placing armed guards in
every school, a central proposal of the advocacy organization.

While some survey questions ask about gun restrictions that go beyond
what President Obama laid out in a news conference last week — such as
bans on private sales and confiscation of previously purchased high-
capacity clips — the poll may provide the clearest look at where NRA
members stand on new gun restrictions.

The poll results come amid a heated debate over whether the NRA’s
leadership is in sync with the group’s members or catering to the
interests of gun manufacturers. In a major news conference announcing
new proposals to combat gun violence, Obama argued that “more than 70
percent of National Rifle Association members” support universal
background checks. He referred to a survey was conducted in May 2012
by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It
used a non-random opt-in Internet panel to contact self-identified NRA
members. The group did not provide requested details about the poll’s
question wording.

Notably, the new NRA poll did not ask about expanding background
checks to sales at gun shows, a measure supported by 86 percent of gun-
owning households and 90 percent of those without guns, according to a
Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week. While polls show
that Americans in gun-owning households oppose restrictions on assault
weapons and high-capacity clips, the new NRA poll finds more intense
opposition among its membership.

The survey also finds strong support for the organization and disdain
for Obama and Democratic leaders. Fully 93 percent of members say they
see Obama in an unfavorable light, and 91 percent say the same for
Vice President Biden. New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) —
an outspoken advocate of new gun-control laws — receives an 80 percent
unfavorable rating from NRA members. Fully 98 percent of the NRA’s
members rate the organization favorably.

Clement is a polling analyst with Capital Insight, the independent
polling group of Washington Post Media.

-30-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/25/nra-members-strongly-oppose-new-gun-restrictions-poll-finds/

[Gray Guest]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:72e53c91-7d34-428d-a0b7-
076f38...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> The poll results come amid a heated debate over whether the NRA's
> leadership is in sync with the group's members or catering to the
> interests of gun manufacturers.

Frankly, I always thought they were pussies.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[WangoTango]

In article <chine.bleu-71E9B...@news.eternal-
september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <XnsA1B8D5245F6E5We...@78.46.70.116>,

> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:72e53c91-7d34-428d-a0b7-
> > 076f38...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > The poll results come amid a heated debate over whether the NRA's
> > > leadership is in sync with the group's members or catering to the
> > > interests of gun manufacturers.
> >
> > Frankly, I always thought they were pussies.
>

> Where's the nearest tower to your home? I await your appearance on the nightly
> news.
>
How are any of those statements related?
Saying the NRA doesn't go far enough does not equate to going on a
shooting spree. Is there any particular reason that some people have to
resort to expressing these absurd thoughts? Most issues have many
shades of grey.

[Gray Guest]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-71E9B...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <XnsA1B8D5245F6E5We...@78.46.70.116>,
> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:72e53c91-7d34-428d-a0b7- 076f38...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > The poll results come amid a heated debate over whether the NRA's
>> > leadership is in sync with the group's members or catering to the
>> > interests of gun manufacturers.
>>
>> Frankly, I always thought they were pussies.
>

> Where's the nearest tower to your home? I await your appearance on the
> nightly news.

Sorry chuckles, I'm Joe Average. Got a point, or did some LSD break loose
from a fat pocket?

[Gray Guest]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net:

Well, when you ain't that bright it's much easier to think what you're
told.

[Gray Guest]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:chine.bleu-A7B72...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net>,

> You're dealing in shades of black.

Actually we're dealing in shades of stupid.

[WangoTango]

In article <chine.bleu-A7B72...@news.eternal-
september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...

> In article <MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>

> You're dealing in shades of black.
>

Making a baseless assertion is another absurd thought.
How would know anything about what *I* think?

[WangoTango]

In article <XnsA1B9DB811DB0AWe...@78.46.70.116>,
No_email...@wahoo.com says...

> WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net:
>
> > In article <chine.bleu-71E9B...@news.eternal-
> > september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
> >> In article <XnsA1B8D5245F6E5We...@78.46.70.116>,
> >> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> > news:72e53c91-7d34-428d-a0b7-
> >> > 076f38...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> >> >
> >> > > The poll results come amid a heated debate over whether the NRA's
> >> > > leadership is in sync with the group's members or catering to the
> >> > > interests of gun manufacturers.
> >> >
> >> > Frankly, I always thought they were pussies.
> >>
> >> Where's the nearest tower to your home? I await your appearance on the
> >> nightly news.
> >>
> > How are any of those statements related?
> > Saying the NRA doesn't go far enough does not equate to going on a
> > shooting spree. Is there any particular reason that some people have to
> > resort to expressing these absurd thoughts? Most issues have many
> > shades of grey.
> >
> >
>
> Well, when you ain't that bright it's much easier to think what you're
> told.

Ain't that the truth.
It is also pretty easy to fuck up a child into strange belief systems.
Some pretty intelligent people have expressed some pretty ignorant
views.

[RichTravsky]

JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
>
> Meanwhile:
>
> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds

A background check is not a restriction.

RT

[JohnJohnsn]

Sure it is, Ricky.

Do you have to undergo a background check in order to purchase a new
computer from a retail store; or can you just walk in, plop down the
cash (or credit card), and walk out with it without having to prove to
the seller that you aren't a convicted purveyor of child pornography
through the computer's being conntected to the Internet?

Why wouldn't such a "Universal Background Check for Computer Buyers"
be a "common sense" law to implement?

Along with such a law would be a requirement that Computer Show
computer sales _must_ go through federally-licensed computer dealers:
"FCLs".

After all, Richy; in the vernacular of the VLILLLDM gun control
protagonists/propagandists:
"If it protects a single child from sexual exploitation...."

"Goose; meet Gander," Richy.

Moreover, computer ownership doesn't even have it's own Bill of Rights
protection like guns do.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...

Really?

So you have no problems with someone being required to produce an ID to
vote?

[Bert]

In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky

<traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A background check is not a restriction.

Of course it is.

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

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on or about Sat, 11 May
2013 02:20:54 -0400 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:

And a background check to buy books? Wouldn't want Criminals and
Crazies getting their hands on such dangerous technologies. "Give me
26 lead soldiers and I'll conquer the world," as Karl Marx is said to
have said.
>

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
Any government which can tell you how many bullets you may be
permitted to put in the firearm it permits you to own, will not
find it difficult to decide the number of chapters allowed in
the book you will be permitted to own.

[Gronk]

Gray Guest wrote:
> JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:72e53c91-7d34-428d-a0b7-
> 076f38...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The poll results come amid a heated debate over whether the NRA's
>> leadership is in sync with the group's members or catering to the
>> interests of gun manufacturers.
>
> Frankly, I always thought they were pussies.

The NRA are pussies?

[RichTravsky]

JohnJohnsn wrote:
>
> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >
> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >
> >> Meanwhile:
> >
> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >
> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >
> Sure it is, Ricky.

How ->

[RichTravsky]

Scout wrote:
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >>
> >> Meanwhile:
> >>
> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >
> > A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Really?

Please show how it IS a restriction ->

[RichTravsky]

Bert wrote:
>
> In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Of course it is.

How ->

[Lamont Cranston]

On 5/10/2013 11:20 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
>> JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>>> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
>>>
>>> Meanwhile:
>>>
>>> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
>>
>> A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Really?

Yes. The right to own a musket is not absolute just as there are limits
on free speech.

[RichTravsky]

D.C. vs Heller.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5190674D...@hotmail.com:

You are correct.....a background check is not a restriction. Of course,
neither is a photo ID to vote.

Have a nice day.....

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5190684A...@hotmail.com...

You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and you
may well be killed waiting on that permission.

It's happened already.

I think that would qualify as a restriction.

Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's up to
you to prove to me that it's not.

[RichTravsky]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:5190674D...@hotmail.com:
>
> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12
> >> >>> .shtml
> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> >
> >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> >
> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >> >
> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> >
> >> Sure it is, Ricky.
> >
> > How ->
> >
>
> You are correct.....a background check is not a restriction. Of course,
> neither is a photo ID to vote.
>
> Have a nice day.....

Requiring a photo ID *is* a barrier. Voting and purchasing a gun are two
very different things.

Have a nice day.

[RichTravsky]

Scout wrote:
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5190684A...@hotmail.com...
> > Scout wrote:
> >>
> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> >>
> >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> >>
> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >> >
> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >
> > Please show how it IS a restriction ->
>
> You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and you
> may well be killed waiting on that permission.
>
> It's happened already.
>
> I think that would qualify as a restriction.

How? It is to laugh...

> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's up to
> you to prove to me that it's not.

Ask the NRA members.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5192FBA0...@hotmail.com...

So it's wrong to require a photo ID to vote....but you want to make it
mandatory to buy a gun, an exercise of a Constitutional right?

The only thing I see that is different is your double standard.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5192FC2B...@hotmail.com...

> Scout wrote:
>>
>> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5190684A...@hotmail.com...
>> > Scout wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
>> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Meanwhile:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
>> >> >
>> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
>> >>
>> >> Really?
>> >
>> > Please show how it IS a restriction ->
>>
>> You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and you
>> may well be killed waiting on that permission.
>>
>> It's happened already.
>>
>> I think that would qualify as a restriction.
>
> How?

Already explained.

> It is to laugh...

So you think people being murdered and unable to defend themselves is a
laughing matter?

>> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's up
>> to
>> you to prove to me that it's not.
>
> Ask the NRA members.

Go right ahead and do so, then you can post the results of your study.

Until then I will note you are unable to back up your claim that it's not a
restriction.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5192FBA0...@hotmail.com:

No more of a barrier than a background check. You want everyone to go
through one of those if they wish to purchase a firearm. I want everyone
to vote who is eligible. Just like with your desire for a passed
background check, I just want to be sure that, in fact, they are eligible.

That is called "consistency" something which you do not seem to have.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5192FC2B...@hotmail.com:

> Scout wrote:
>>
>> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5190684A...@hotmail.com...
>> > Scout wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
>> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr00
>> >> >> > 6-12.shtml
>> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Meanwhile:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
>> >> >
>> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
>> >>
>> >> Really?
>> >
>> > Please show how it IS a restriction ->
>>
>> You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and
>> you may well be killed waiting on that permission.
>>
>> It's happened already.
>>
>> I think that would qualify as a restriction.
>
> How? It is to laugh...

In his example, someone ended up dead. You don't think that was a
restriction?

>> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's
>> up to you to prove to me that it's not.
>
> Ask the NRA members.

About what?

[WangoTango]

In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
says...

> In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Of course it is.
>

Especially if you are the guy denied the exercising of a "protected"
right. When you allow the powers that be to vet the exercising of ANY
right, where does it end? An English test before you can write your
Congressman? I don't know why these people don't see this as a MAJOR
intrusion into our rights.

[WangoTango]

In article <5192FBA0...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
says...

Wow, cognitive dissonance at its' finest.
Asking permission to exercise a protected right means it is NOT being
protected, it is being regulated.

[WangoTango]

In article <5192FC2B...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
says...

OK, I consider it a restriction and I am an NRA Life Member.
Next...

[U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)]

The May 17 - 2013 Edition Of weezer919.com Has Just Been
Published ...... http://weezer919.com/ ......

Please Read This Website ......

Please Email This Website To Your Friends ......

If You Know How To Build Websites ......

Please Feel Free To Copy This Website And Call It Your Own ...... You
Have My Permission ......

----------------------------------------------

All I Want Is A Voice

----------------------------------------------

All I Want Is To Be Able To Fight For All The People Out There Who
Cannot Fight For Themselves

[RichTravsky]

Noted - you still can't show how they're the same thing.

[RichTravsky]

Scout wrote:
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5192FC2B...@hotmail.com...
> > Scout wrote:
> >>
> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5190684A...@hotmail.com...
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
> >> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really?
> >> >
> >> > Please show how it IS a restriction ->
> >>
> >> You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and you
> >> may well be killed waiting on that permission.
> >>
> >> It's happened already.
> >>
> >> I think that would qualify as a restriction.
> >
> > How?
>
> Already explained.

Not. A background check is not a restriction. Read DC vs Heller.

> > It is to laugh...
>
> So you think people being murdered and unable to defend themselves is a
> laughing matter?

Guns not needed for that. Get real.

> >> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's up
> >> to
> >> you to prove to me that it's not.
> >
> > Ask the NRA members.
>
> Go right ahead and do so, then you can post the results of your study.

Duh, what the hell do you think the thread is about???? That's right, a poll.
The link is right up above.

Here's another


http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-2-opinions-of-gun-owners-non-gun-owners/
...
Yet people in NRA households overwhelmingly favor making private gun sales
and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: 74% favor this proposal
while just 26% are opposed.
...

And another


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
...
There is support for universal background checks across political party
lines, and among Americans who have a gun in their household. 85% of
those living in a household with an NRAmember favor background checks.

> Until then I will note you are unable to back up your claim that it's not a
> restriction.

You're unable to show that it is.

[RichTravsky]

But not the same thing. Thank you, you may sit down now.

[RichTravsky]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> news:5192FC2B...@hotmail.com:

>
> > Scout wrote:
> >>
> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5190684A...@hotmail.com...
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr00
> >> >> >> > 6-12.shtml
> >> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really?
> >> >
> >> > Please show how it IS a restriction ->
> >>
> >> You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and
> >> you may well be killed waiting on that permission.
> >>
> >> It's happened already.
> >>
> >> I think that would qualify as a restriction.
> >
> > How? It is to laugh...
>

> In his example, someone ended up dead. You don't think that was a
> restriction?

No. You still get the bang bang after your record is checked.

> >> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's
> >> up to you to prove to me that it's not.
> >
> > Ask the NRA members.
>

> About what?

Another brain dead con-servative. Hint - look at the subject line...

[RichTravsky]

WangoTango wrote:
>
> In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
> says...
> > In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> > <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > A background check is not a restriction.
> >
> > Of course it is.
> >
> Especially if you are the guy denied the exercising of a "protected"

Please check out DC vs Heller.

[RichTravsky]

Then you're in the minority of nra members.

next...

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51970C80...@hotmail.com...

True, you probably consider people being murdered and unable to defend
themselves a laughing matter no matter what arms you would deny them.

>> >> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's
>> >> up
>> >> to
>> >> you to prove to me that it's not.
>> >
>> > Ask the NRA members.
>>
>> Go right ahead and do so, then you can post the results of your study.
>
> Duh, what the hell do you think the thread is about???? That's right, a
> poll.

Sorry, you said to ask NRA members.....so that's what you're going to have
to do.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51970D38...@hotmail.com...

Quite true, they are not the same thing....the background check is far more
oppressive since it extends far beyond simply producing a photo ID.

Yet you find that first step to be reprehensible when required to
vote....but not only perfectly acceptable to require to exercise their 2nd
Amendment Constitutional rights, BUT you're going to demand that they then
seek PERMISSION to be able to do so.

So tell me why having to produce a photo ID is OK to exercise one
right....but objectionable for another.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51970DAB...@hotmail.com...

Yea, and that's going to do that person a whole lot of gun now that they're
already dead.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5197100A...@hotmail.com...

> WangoTango wrote:
>>
>> In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
>> says...
>> > In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
>> > <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > A background check is not a restriction.
>> >
>> > Of course it is.
>> >
>> Especially if you are the guy denied the exercising of a "protected"
>
> Please check out DC vs Heller.

Yep, nothing in there says it's not a restriction.

And that restrictions can be Unconstitutional.

Now if it's Unconstitutional to require a photo id in order to vote....why
should it be required to buy a gun, or check out a book, or exercise any
other right?

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5197102E...@hotmail.com...

Not according to the data produced here.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519708CC...@hotmail.com:

One is to prove you are a citizen, the other is to prove you are a good
citizen. But the bottom line is that you want one and don't want the
other.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:51970C80...@hotmail.com:

Neither is a photo ID.

>> > It is to laugh...
>>
>> So you think people being murdered and unable to defend themselves is
>> a laughing matter?
>
> Guns not needed for that. Get real.

That depends on your physical shape and that of the person attacking you.

I am in favor of the universal background check but definitely not the
database that could come from it. I also want everybody who is eligible
to vote to do so, I just wish to ensure that they are eligible. Much
like you want to ensure that anyone who is going to buy a gun is not a
felon or a whacko.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:51970D38...@hotmail.com:

Your opinion is a fart in a windstorm. I could care less what it is.

>> through one of those if they wish to purchase a firearm. I want
>> everyone to vote who is eligible. Just like with your desire for a
>> passed background check, I just want to be sure that, in fact, they
>> are eligible.
>>
>> That is called "consistency" something which you do not seem to have.
>

[WangoTango]

In article <5197100A...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
says...

> WangoTango wrote:
> >
> > In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
> > says...
> > > In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> > > <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A background check is not a restriction.
> > >
> > > Of course it is.
> > >
> > Especially if you are the guy denied the exercising of a "protected"
>
> Please check out DC vs Heller.

Old news.
Wouldn't it make better sense for you to explain the relevance to the
ongoing discussion?

[WangoTango]

In article <5197102E...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
says...

I guess you would have to prove that your assertion that I am in the
minority, which I'll bet I'm not, and then you would have to prove that
the majority opinion is correct. The system is suppose to be set up so
a bully majority can't infringe upon a minority just because the ARE a
majority. It takes more than numbers to make something correct.

[RichTravsky]

Thanks

> >> >> Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's
> >> >> up
> >> >> to
> >> >> you to prove to me that it's not.
> >> >
> >> > Ask the NRA members.
> >>
> >> Go right ahead and do so, then you can post the results of your study.
> >
> > Duh, what the hell do you think the thread is about???? That's right, a
> > poll.
>
> Sorry, you said to ask NRA members.....so that's what you're going to have
> to do.

No, the poll was for that. Been done. They're for the checks.

[RichTravsky]

Thanks.

[RichTravsky]

Thanks

[RichTravsky]

Scout wrote:
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5197100A...@hotmail.com...
> > WangoTango wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
> >> says...
> >> > In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> >> > <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> >
> >> > Of course it is.
> >> >
> >> Especially if you are the guy denied the exercising of a "protected"
> >
> > Please check out DC vs Heller.
>
> Yep, nothing in there says it's not a restriction.

Thanks.

[RichTravsky]

Scout wrote:
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5197102E...@hotmail.com...
> > WangoTango wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <5192FC2B...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
> >> says...
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > Scout wrote:
> >> > > >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >> > > >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> > > >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> >
> >> > > >> >> > http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
> >> > > >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Really?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Please show how it IS a restriction ->
> >> > >
> >> > > You can be delayed in your ability to buy a gun for self defense, and
> >> > > you
> >> > > may well be killed waiting on that permission.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's happened already.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think that would qualify as a restriction.
> >> >
> >> > How? It is to laugh...
> >> >
> >> > > Oh, and FYI, it's not up to me to show you it is a restriction, it's
> >> > > up to
> >> > > you to prove to me that it's not.
> >> >
> >> > Ask the NRA members.
> >> >
> >> OK, I consider it a restriction and I am an NRA Life Member.
> >> Next...
> >
> > Then you're in the minority of nra members.
>
> Not according to the data produced here.

Please note subject line. Then follow the link the OP posted.

[RichTravsky]

The bottom line is that DC vs Heller said checks are ok.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

...
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,
that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and
bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First
Amendment's right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v.
Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second
Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any
sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to
protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
...
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases,
commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a
right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose.
...
... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and
the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
...

[RichTravsky]

Then how the heck can you do a universal background check?

[RichTravsky]

DC vs Heller says you're the fart in a windstorm.

[RichTravsky]

WangoTango wrote:
>
> In article <5197100A...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
> says...
> > WangoTango wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
> > > says...
> > > > In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> > > > <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A background check is not a restriction.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it is.
> > > >
> > > Especially if you are the guy denied the exercising of a "protected"
> >
> > Please check out DC vs Heller.
> Old news.
> Wouldn't it make better sense for you to explain the relevance to the
> ongoing discussion?

Old news is the law of the land. DUH

Please note the last part of the excerpt:

[RichTravsky]

Hint - subject line and the link the OP posted.

And there's these

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-2-opinions-of-gun-owners-non-gun-owners/

...
Yet people in NRA households overwhelmingly favor making private gun sales
and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: 74% favor this proposal
while just 26% are opposed.
...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/

...
There is support for universal background checks across political party
lines, and among Americans who have a gun in their household. 85% of
those living in a household with an NRAmember favor background checks.

Perhaps if you could cite a poll showing otherwise...

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:519C393C...@hotmail.com...

Sorry, but I've not see a poll yet other than the one from the NRA there the
people polled could be confirmed as members of the NRA.

So please, post the poll you think was of NRA members and ONLY NRA members
that supports your claim.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:519C3958...@hotmail.com...

And I acknowledge your dishonesty by taking my comments out of context.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519C3E91...@hotmail.com:

Then they should be alright for both.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519C3EB2...@hotmail.com:

It is really quite easy to do. Put all the prohibited possessors in a
database. Run the background check against them. If there is a match,
don't transfer the gun to him. Pretty simple really. Damn, we already
have that.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519C3F01...@hotmail.com:

You aren't even mentioned.

[SaPeIsMa]

"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2bfefb7d9...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <5192FBA0...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
> says...

>> RD Sandman wrote:
>> >
>> > RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > news:5190674D...@hotmail.com:
>> >
>> > > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12
>> > >> >>> .shtml
>> > >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Meanwhile:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
>> > >> >
>> > >> > A background check is not a restriction.
>> > >> >
>> > >> Sure it is, Ricky.
>> > >
>> > > How ->
>> > >
>> >
>> > You are correct.....a background check is not a restriction. Of
>> > course,
>> > neither is a photo ID to vote.
>> >
>> > Have a nice day.....
>>
>> Requiring a photo ID *is* a barrier. Voting and purchasing a gun are two
>> very different things.
>

> Wow, cognitive dissonance at its' finest.
> Asking permission to exercise a protected right means it is NOT being
> protected, it is being regulated.
>
>

By the way, where is the "right to vote" listed in the Bill of Rights ?

[RD Sandman]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:knj4sd$jch$1...@dont-email.me:

15th Amendment:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

24th Amendment:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or
other election for President or Vice President, for electors for
President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

26th Amendment:

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of
age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

[SaPeIsMa]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1C888405...@216.196.121.131...

Last time I checked, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments
Notice that all the Amendments that you list are not actual are actual
additions to the alleged right to vote to change restrictions that were
considered perfectly legal and Constitutional previously.

[RD Sandman]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:knjsl6$89f$2...@dont-email.me:

I am just letting you know that the right to vote IS covered in the
Constitution and where. I didn't claim that they were in the BoR.

[SaPeIsMa]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA1C95A49...@216.196.121.131...

I'm one of those people who got a free copy of the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution and the Amendments from the Cato Institute
I have read it front to back multiple times.
So I am well acquainted with the Amendments that came subsequently to add to
the (originally unspecified) right to vote.
I guess it was one of those rights implied in the 9th Amendment.
:-)

[RD Sandman]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:knlif9$8rp$1...@dont-email.me:

I dunno. There is quite a write on how the prez is elected and that the
Representatives in the House are "chosen" by the people they represent,
although the term "vote" is not used.

My current copies (I have worn out a couple) are still getting long in
the tooth. I suppose I will have to order another set.....oh, my.....
;)

[RichTravsky]

Scout wrote:
>
> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:519C393C...@hotmail.com...
> > Scout wrote:
> >>
> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

It's right up above. Get an adult to help you.

[RichTravsky]

Nothing was taken out of context. Those are your words.

[RichTravsky]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:519C3E91...@hotmail.com:
>
> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >>
> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:519708CC...@hotmail.com:
> >>
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com>

> >> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> >>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center
> >> >> >> >> >>> /pr 006-12 .shtml
> >> >> >> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll
> >> >> >> >> >> finds
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Sure it is, Ricky.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > How ->
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are correct.....a background check is not a restriction.
> >> >> >> Of course, neither is a photo ID to vote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Have a nice day.....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Requiring a photo ID *is* a barrier. Voting and purchasing a gun
> >> >> > are two very different things.
> >> >>
> >> >> So it's wrong to require a photo ID to vote....but you want to
> >> >> make it mandatory to buy a gun, an exercise of a Constitutional
> >> >> right?
> >> >>
> >> >> The only thing I see that is different is your double standard.
> >> >
> >> > Noted - you still can't show how they're the same thing.
> >>
> >> One is to prove you are a citizen, the other is to prove you are a
> >> good citizen. But the bottom line is that you want one and don't
> >> want the other.
> >
> > The bottom line is that DC vs Heller said checks are ok.
>
> Then they should be alright for both.

DC vs Heller was only about guns. Don't like it, take a case to the SC.

[RichTravsky]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:519C3EB2...@hotmail.com:
>
> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >>
> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:51970C80...@hotmail.com:
> >>
> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > Scout wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> >> >

How was the list of "prohibited possessors" compiled? Oops, from
a database. Ooops, you said

I am in favor of the universal background check but definitely not
the database that could come from it

So, you want a database that's not a database?

[RichTravsky]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:519C3F01...@hotmail.com:
>
> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >>
> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:51970D38...@hotmail.com:
> >>
> >> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> > RD Sandman wrote:
> >> >> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com>

> >> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> >

> >> >> >> >> >>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center
> >> >> >> >> >>> /pr 006 -12 .shtml
> >> >> >> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> Meanwhile:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll
> >> >> >> >> >> finds
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Sure it is, Ricky.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > How ->
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are correct.....a background check is not a restriction.
> >> >> >> Of course, neither is a photo ID to vote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Have a nice day.....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Requiring a photo ID *is* a barrier. Voting and purchasing a gun
> >> >> > are two very different things.
> >> >>
> >> >> No more of a barrier than a background check. You want everyone to
> >> >> go
> >> >
> >> > But not the same thing. Thank you, you may sit down now.
> >>
> >> Your opinion is a fart in a windstorm. I could care less what it is.
> >
> > DC vs Heller says you're the fart in a windstorm.
> >
>
> You aren't even mentioned.

Of course not. You were.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51A043C1...@hotmail.com...

And you think an assertion being made means the assertion is always true?

LOL.

Maybe you need to get some help.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51A043E0...@hotmail.com...

And taken out of context.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51A0441B...@hotmail.com...

No, actually it indicated that our 2nd Amendment rights had to be treated
the same as any other rights.

Which means that if having to get a check to vote is
Unconstitutional.....then it would also be Unconstitutional to require to
buy a book, go to church or buy a gun.

Either checks are allowed for ALL rights, or they aren't allowed for any.

You can decide which it will be, but you can't mix n' match.

[Scout]

"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:51A044BA...@hotmail.com...

Database of offenders - OK
Database of the checks and thus gun owners - Bad.

Do try to keep up.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 11:58:47 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

>news:519708CC...@hotmail.com:

>
>> Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> "RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:5192FBA0...@hotmail.com...

>>> > RD Sandman wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in

>>> >> news:5190674D...@hotmail.com:

>>> >>
>>> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com>

>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr
>>> >> >> >>> 006-12 .shtml
>>> >> >> >> Mayor Mikey Bloomberg Lying About the NRA Again
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> Meanwhile:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> NRA Members strongly oppose new gun restrictions, poll finds
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > A background check is not a restriction.
>>> >> >> >

>>> >> >> Sure it is, Ricky.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > How ->
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> You are correct.....a background check is not a restriction. Of
>>> >> course, neither is a photo ID to vote.
>>> >>
>>> >> Have a nice day.....
>>> >
>>> > Requiring a photo ID *is* a barrier. Voting and purchasing a gun
>>> > are two very different things.
>>>
>>> So it's wrong to require a photo ID to vote....but you want to make
>>> it mandatory to buy a gun, an exercise of a Constitutional right?
>>>
>>> The only thing I see that is different is your double standard.
>>
>> Noted - you still can't show how they're the same thing.
>
>
>One is to prove you are a citizen, the other is to prove you are a good
>citizen. But the bottom line is that you want one and don't want the
>other.

You still have to prove you're a good citizen to vote. Normally,
felons can't vote, right?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:43:51 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <omj1q8lr6pk2r7e87...@4ax.com>,

> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You still have to prove you're a good citizen to vote. Normally,
>> felons can't vote, right?
>

>In this state a voter registration constitutes testimony under oath. Lying can
>be prosecuted as perjury.

Like lying on a Form 4473 could be prosecuted, right?

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:51A0441B...@hotmail.com:

Yep, but at least I am consistent. I believe in background checks for
gun purchases and I believe in photo ID to vote. You don't like it? Who
cares? I don't.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:51A044BA...@hotmail.com:

Yep. Those folks lost their right to privacy in that database. You
don't wish to be a prohibited possessor, don't do the crime.

> I am in favor of the universal background check but definitely not
> the database that could come from it
>
> So, you want a database that's not a database?

Not what I said, but everyone here knows about your limited understanding
of things, after all, you seem to enforce it whenever you post.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knqihj$4ln$1...@dont-email.me:

He can't.....too many moving parts.

[RD Sandman]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-E8291...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <knqihj$4ln$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Do you mean like driver licenses and vehicle registrations?

Nope, more like felons, drug dealers, those who denied their citizenship,
dishonorable discharges, etc... The very people you don't wish to have
guns.

[RD Sandman]

RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:51A044FB...@hotmail.com:

Yep, I am one of the guys who can have guns and carry them.

[RD Sandman]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:chine.bleu-0D620...@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <omj1q8lr6pk2r7e87...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> You still have to prove you're a good citizen to vote. Normally,
>> felons can't vote, right?
>

> In this state a voter registration constitutes testimony under oath.
> Lying can be prosecuted as perjury.

Which state is that?

[RichTravsky]

Maybe you should look up what a poll is, eh?

[RichTravsky]

How?

[RichTravsky]

No, that's not what it said. The ruling only applied to the 2nd.

[RichTravsky]

Why?

[RichTravsky]

Consistent does not mean you're right.

[RichTravsky]

But it's a database!

> > I am in favor of the universal background check but definitely not
> > the database that could come from it
> >
> > So, you want a database that's not a database?
>
> Not what I said, but everyone here knows about your limited understanding
> of things, after all, you seem to enforce it whenever you post.

So, with your limited undderstanding, you can't explain yourself?

[RichTravsky]

So we're in agreement.