Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Even NRA members want background checks
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Gronk
May 5, 2013, 7:41:49 PM5/5/13
to
MattB .
May 5, 2013, 8:03:17 PM5/5/13
to
On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:41:49 -0600, Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
wrote:
>
>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR
COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN
RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP
Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with
Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals
Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring
Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of
Lost and Stolen Guns � Measures Opposed by the NRA�s Washington Office
Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by
GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners
overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out
of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend
unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any
changes to U.S. gun laws. The poll also dispels the myth among many
Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for
common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of
dangerous people and keep Americans safe.
Among the survey�s key findings:
87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment
rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of
criminals.
There is very strong support for criminal background checks among NRA
members and gun owners:
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support
requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support
requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees
� a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
NRA members strongly support allowing states � not the Federal
government � to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want
to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places, with 91 percent of
NRA members stating states should decide.
*******************************
If liberals would stop trying to add gun registration they might have
a better chance.
To me the question is simple can this or that person buy a gun. Yes
or No.
wrote:
>
>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR
COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN
RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP
Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with
Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals
Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring
Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of
Lost and Stolen Guns � Measures Opposed by the NRA�s Washington Office
Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by
GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners
overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out
of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend
unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any
changes to U.S. gun laws. The poll also dispels the myth among many
Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for
common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of
dangerous people and keep Americans safe.
Among the survey�s key findings:
87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment
rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of
criminals.
There is very strong support for criminal background checks among NRA
members and gun owners:
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support
requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support
requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees
� a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
NRA members strongly support allowing states � not the Federal
government � to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want
to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places, with 91 percent of
NRA members stating states should decide.
*******************************
If liberals would stop trying to add gun registration they might have
a better chance.
To me the question is simple can this or that person buy a gun. Yes
or No.
Scout
May 5, 2013, 8:14:07 PM5/5/13
to
"MattB ." <trdel...@spamnogmail.com> wrote in message
news:fpsdo8tbod15jstpf...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:41:49 -0600, Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>
>
> NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR
> COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN
> RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP
The problem is that how NRA members define common-sense gun laws, and what
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>
>
> NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR
> COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN
> RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP
anti-gun groups consider common-sense gun laws are two vastly different
things.
For example, in this article they cite support for keeping guns out of the
hands of criminals.
Great. Who's going to oppose that?
But does that mean you support a general ban on guns?
Does that mean you support restrictions, limitations, conditions, checks,
licenses, permits, inspections, authorizations, etc, etc, etc, for
NON-criminals?
So when the Mayor can provide us with actual common sense gun laws that
target just criminals....then the NRA will undoubtedly support it.
When they come up with some piece of crap that targets people in general,
then I bet the rank and file support the NRA in opposing it even though the
anti-gun crowd claims it as "common sense gun control".
See, that's the issue with 'polls' such as these. The questions are so vague
that they are meaningless, yet the people using those polls will call they
support any and every specific proposal, position, etc that they want to
claim.
If you want to find out if they support those things, then you need to ask
about those specific things. Somehow, I bet you would find the rank and file
start to agree with the leadership.
However, I bet they aren't really interested in finding out what people
REALLY think about their specific policies, agendas, proposals and so on.
MattB .
May 5, 2013, 9:42:27 PM5/5/13
to
Range here is Democrat. They asked for the list. I live in
Washington State majority of people here vote Democrat.
I think that to keep Criminals from buying guns requires only a yes or
a no answer. Seems the far left really want federal Gun registration.
I want details on any bill before a vote.
BTW have you noticed how the liberal rags have stopped using the words
Gang Violence and changed to Gun Violence.
SaPeIsMa
May 5, 2013, 9:47:01 PM5/5/13
to
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:41:49 -0600, Gronk <inv...@usenetlove.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>
Anything from Bloomie's "mayors against guns" is going to be a lie
> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>
Scout
May 5, 2013, 10:33:02 PM5/5/13
to
news:c12eo895se8tr1e80...@4ax.com...
Yea, apparently without guns, those gang members would be out playing
basketball at midnight...
basketball at midnight...
JohnJohnsn
May 5, 2013, 11:29:18 PM5/5/13
to
On May 5, 7:03 pm, MattB <trdell1...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:41:49 -0600, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, of
which Luntz was not a member, criticized Luntz for refusing to release
poll data to support his claimed results "because of client
confidentiality". Diane Colasanto, who was president of the AAPOR at
the time, said
“It is simply wanting to know, How many people did you question?
What were the questions? We understand the need for confidentiality,
but once a pollster makes results public, the information needs to be
public. People need to be able to evaluate whether it was sound
research."
In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for
allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he
conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004,
MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's
presidential debate, saying "[W]e made a decision not to use focus
groups as part of our debate coverage. This decision had nothing to do
with Frank's past work or politics." Luntz disagreed, believing that
MSNBC "buckled to political pressure" from activist David Brock.
Luntz was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his
promotion of the phrase 'government takeover' to refer to healthcare
reform, starting in the spring of 2009. "'Takeovers are like coups,'
Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. 'They both lead to dictators and a loss
of freedom.'" In an editorial response, the Wall Street Journal wrote
that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that
seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies,
misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or
principles." The editors of PolitiFact announced "We have concluded it
is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover."
On April 25, 2013 The American Spectator, a conservative news outlet,
published a scathing article about Luntz entitled, The Problematic
Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome. "In fact, what Luntz has done is
simply reveal the kind of thinking that goes on in the minds of too
many on the right who, whether they realize it or not, have been
intellectually and culturally bullied that there is some sort of
'right way' — 'right' as in 'correct' — to think. Resulting in some
conservatives who suffer from what might be called a political version
of Stockholm Syndrome — where the captives identify with their
captors." The article was a response to an April 22, 2013 leaked
recording of Luntz at the University of Pennsylvania, where he blamed
conservative radio personalities (specifically Rush Limbaugh and Mark
Levin) for being "problematic" and "destroying" Republicans' ability
to connect with more voters, or even maintain a majority in the House
of Representatives in the 2014 mid-term elections. "He warned that if
his party did not resolve its internal divides, it could lose the
House of Representatives next year...'And they get great ratings, and
they drive the message, and it's really problematic. And this is not
on the Democratic side. It's only on the Republican side…
[inaudible]... By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others'." In
response to being exposed, Luntz's has announced that he will no
longer fund a scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania. The
scholarship, which is actually in his father's name, supports student
trips to Washington D.C..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Criticism
IOW: "Consider the source."
Just like the "90% want Universal Background Check" poll numbers, the
result is based upon how well the questionee is actually knowledgable
of the whole issue and the way the question is phrased as to how
believable the result is.
Here the other issue with this article is: "How did Luntz get a list
of `NRA members' to query in the first place?"
Polls are _supposed_ to be of a "random sampling" (according to
polling "exspurt" Ed Huntress).
Oh, BTW, Frankie: I'M an NRA Benefactor Life Member whom you did _not_
"poll" and I disagree with the "results" of your "poll."
>
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 17:41:49 -0600, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>
> NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT
> FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN
> RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP
>
Criticism of Frank Luntz:
>
>> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
>
> NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT
> FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN
> RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP
>
In 1997, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, of
which Luntz was not a member, criticized Luntz for refusing to release
poll data to support his claimed results "because of client
confidentiality". Diane Colasanto, who was president of the AAPOR at
the time, said
“It is simply wanting to know, How many people did you question?
What were the questions? We understand the need for confidentiality,
but once a pollster makes results public, the information needs to be
public. People need to be able to evaluate whether it was sound
research."
In 2000 he was censured by the National Council on Public Polls "for
allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he
conducted during the [2000] Republican Convention." In September 2004,
MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year's
presidential debate, saying "[W]e made a decision not to use focus
groups as part of our debate coverage. This decision had nothing to do
with Frank's past work or politics." Luntz disagreed, believing that
MSNBC "buckled to political pressure" from activist David Brock.
Luntz was awarded the 2010 PolitiFact Lie of the Year award for his
promotion of the phrase 'government takeover' to refer to healthcare
reform, starting in the spring of 2009. "'Takeovers are like coups,'
Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. 'They both lead to dictators and a loss
of freedom.'" In an editorial response, the Wall Street Journal wrote
that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that
seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies,
misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or
principles." The editors of PolitiFact announced "We have concluded it
is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover."
On April 25, 2013 The American Spectator, a conservative news outlet,
published a scathing article about Luntz entitled, The Problematic
Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome. "In fact, what Luntz has done is
simply reveal the kind of thinking that goes on in the minds of too
many on the right who, whether they realize it or not, have been
intellectually and culturally bullied that there is some sort of
'right way' — 'right' as in 'correct' — to think. Resulting in some
conservatives who suffer from what might be called a political version
of Stockholm Syndrome — where the captives identify with their
captors." The article was a response to an April 22, 2013 leaked
recording of Luntz at the University of Pennsylvania, where he blamed
conservative radio personalities (specifically Rush Limbaugh and Mark
Levin) for being "problematic" and "destroying" Republicans' ability
to connect with more voters, or even maintain a majority in the House
of Representatives in the 2014 mid-term elections. "He warned that if
his party did not resolve its internal divides, it could lose the
House of Representatives next year...'And they get great ratings, and
they drive the message, and it's really problematic. And this is not
on the Democratic side. It's only on the Republican side…
[inaudible]... By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others'." In
response to being exposed, Luntz's has announced that he will no
longer fund a scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania. The
scholarship, which is actually in his father's name, supports student
trips to Washington D.C..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Criticism
IOW: "Consider the source."
result is based upon how well the questionee is actually knowledgable
of the whole issue and the way the question is phrased as to how
believable the result is.
Here the other issue with this article is: "How did Luntz get a list
of `NRA members' to query in the first place?"
Polls are _supposed_ to be of a "random sampling" (according to
polling "exspurt" Ed Huntress).
Oh, BTW, Frankie: I'M an NRA Benefactor Life Member whom you did _not_
"poll" and I disagree with the "results" of your "poll."
JohnJohnsn
May 6, 2013, 12:27:00 AM5/6/13
to
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
>
>
> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
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
May 6, 2013, 8:53:09 PM5/6/13
to
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
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.
--
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
Message has been deleted
WangoTango
May 7, 2013, 1:13:36 PM5/7/13
to
In article <chine.bleu-71E9B...@news.eternal-
september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <XnsA1B8D5245F6E5We...@78.46.70.116>,
> 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.
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
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
Message has been deleted
Gray Guest
May 7, 2013, 9:29:34 PM5/7/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-71E9B...@news.eternal-september.org:
from a fat pocket?
news:chine.bleu-71E9B...@news.eternal-september.org:
>> 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.
>
>> 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
> nightly news.
from a fat pocket?
Gray Guest
May 7, 2013, 9:30:28 PM5/7/13
to
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.
news:MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net:
told.
Gray Guest
May 7, 2013, 9:30:52 PM5/7/13
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-A7B72...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
Actually we're dealing in shades of stupid.
Message has been deleted
WangoTango
May 10, 2013, 1:16:08 PM5/10/13
to
In article <chine.bleu-A7B72...@news.eternal-
september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
How would know anything about what *I* think?
september.org>, chine...@yahoo.com says...
> In article <MPG.2bf3004b5...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> 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
May 10, 2013, 1:18:38 PM5/10/13
to
In article <XnsA1B9DB811DB0AWe...@78.46.70.116>,
No_email...@wahoo.com says...
It is also pretty easy to fuck up a child into strange belief systems.
Some pretty intelligent people have expressed some pretty ignorant
views.
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.
> 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.
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
May 11, 2013, 1:32:10 AM5/11/13
to
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.
>
> 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
RT
JohnJohnsn
May 11, 2013, 1:48:02 AM5/11/13
to
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
May 11, 2013, 2:20:54 AM5/11/13
to
"RichTravsky" <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com...
So you have no problems with someone being required to produce an ID to
vote?
Bert
May 11, 2013, 10:59:21 AM5/11/13
to
pyotr filipivich
May 11, 2013, 1:22:10 PM5/11/13
to
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.
<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:
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
May 12, 2013, 9:24:12 PM5/12/13
to
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?
> 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.
RichTravsky
May 13, 2013, 12:08:45 AM5/13/13
to
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 ->
>
> 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.
RichTravsky
May 13, 2013, 12:12:58 AM5/13/13
to
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" <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?
RichTravsky
May 13, 2013, 12:13:51 AM5/13/13
to
Bert wrote:
>
> In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Of course it is.
How ->
>
> In news:518DD7DA...@hotmail.com RichTravsky
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Of course it is.
Lamont Cranston
May 13, 2013, 12:25:35 AM5/13/13
to
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
>
>
> "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?
on free speech.
RichTravsky
May 13, 2013, 12:28:56 AM5/13/13
to
RD Sandman
May 13, 2013, 12:42:06 AM5/13/13
to
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.
news:5190674D...@hotmail.com:
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
May 13, 2013, 1:20:06 AM5/13/13
to
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.
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.
bigdog
May 13, 2013, 2:24:07 PM5/13/13
to
On Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:41:49 PM UTC-4, Gronk wrote:
> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
Frank Luntz??? Really???
> http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml
Frank Luntz??? Really???
RichTravsky
May 14, 2013, 11:06:08 PM5/14/13
to
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
>
> 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.....
very different things.
Have a nice day.
RichTravsky
May 14, 2013, 11:08:27 PM5/14/13
to
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...
>
> "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.
> 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.
Scout
May 14, 2013, 11:54:59 PM5/14/13
to
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.
mandatory to buy a gun, an exercise of a Constitutional right?
The only thing I see that is different is your double standard.
Scout
May 14, 2013, 11:56:47 PM5/14/13
to
news:5192FC2B...@hotmail.com...
> 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.
> 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.
>>
>> "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...
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.
Until then I will note you are unable to back up your claim that it's not a
restriction.
RD Sandman
May 15, 2013, 5:53:05 PM5/15/13
to
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.
news:5192FBA0...@hotmail.com:
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
May 15, 2013, 5:54:45 PM5/15/13
to
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?
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...
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.
WangoTango
May 16, 2013, 3:17:40 PM5/16/13
to
In article <XnsA1BD663E6F5...@78.46.70.116>, be...@iphouse.com
says...
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.
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"
> <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A background check is not a restriction.
>
> Of course it is.
>
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
May 16, 2013, 3:20:21 PM5/16/13
to
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.
says...
Asking permission to exercise a protected right means it is NOT being
protected, it is being regulated.
WangoTango
May 16, 2013, 3:21:34 PM5/16/13
to
In article <5192FC2B...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
says...
OK, I consider it a restriction and I am an NRA Life Member.
Next...
says...
Next...
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 12:51:24 AM5/18/13
to
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 1:07:12 AM5/18/13
to
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.
>
> "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.
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.
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 1:10:16 AM5/18/13
to
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 1:12:11 AM5/18/13
to
> news:5192FC2B...@hotmail.com:
> >> 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...
>
> > 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...
>
> > 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.
> 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.
>
Another brain dead con-servative. Hint - look at the subject line...
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 1:22:18 AM5/18/13
to
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.
>
> 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"
RichTravsky
May 18, 2013, 1:22:54 AM5/18/13
to
next...
Scout
May 18, 2013, 3:29:11 AM5/18/13
to
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.
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.
to do.
Scout
May 18, 2013, 3:32:50 AM5/18/13
to
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.
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
May 18, 2013, 3:33:46 AM5/18/13
to
news:51970DAB...@hotmail.com...
Yea, and that's going to do that person a whole lot of gun now that they're
already dead.
already dead.
Scout
May 18, 2013, 3:35:53 AM5/18/13
to
news:5197100A...@hotmail.com...
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?
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
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
May 18, 2013, 3:36:20 AM5/18/13
to
news:5197102E...@hotmail.com...
Not according to the data produced here.
RD Sandman
May 18, 2013, 12:58:47 PM5/18/13
to
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.
news:519708CC...@hotmail.com:
citizen. But the bottom line is that you want one and don't want the
other.
RD Sandman
May 18, 2013, 1:02:37 PM5/18/13
to
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.
news:51970C80...@hotmail.com:
>> > 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.
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
May 18, 2013, 1:03:32 PM5/18/13
to
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.
>
news:51970D38...@hotmail.com:
>> 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
May 20, 2013, 4:00:02 PM5/20/13
to
In article <5197100A...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
says...
Wouldn't it make better sense for you to explain the relevance to the
ongoing discussion?
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.
> >
> > 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.
Wouldn't it make better sense for you to explain the relevance to the
ongoing discussion?
WangoTango
May 20, 2013, 4:03:02 PM5/20/13
to
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.
says...
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
May 21, 2013, 11:19:24 PM5/21/13
to
> >> >> 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.
RichTravsky
May 21, 2013, 11:19:52 PM5/21/13
to
RichTravsky
May 21, 2013, 11:20:17 PM5/21/13
to
RichTravsky
May 21, 2013, 11:20:47 PM5/21/13
to
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" <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.
RichTravsky
May 21, 2013, 11:22:38 PM5/21/13
to
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
>
> "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.
> >> > > >> >> 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.
RichTravsky
May 21, 2013, 11:42:09 PM5/21/13
to
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
May 21, 2013, 11:42:42 PM5/21/13
to
RichTravsky
May 21, 2013, 11:44:01 PM5/21/13
to
RichTravsky
May 22, 2013, 12:57:56 AM5/22/13
to
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
>
> 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?
Please note the last part of the excerpt:
RichTravsky
May 22, 2013, 1:01:56 AM5/22/13
to
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/
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.
...
...
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...
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.
Scout
May 22, 2013, 1:43:17 AM5/22/13
to
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.
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
May 22, 2013, 1:44:42 AM5/22/13
to
news:519C3958...@hotmail.com...
And I acknowledge your dishonesty by taking my comments out of context.
RD Sandman
May 22, 2013, 1:30:11 PM5/22/13
to
RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519C3E91...@hotmail.com:
Then they should be alright for both.
news:519C3E91...@hotmail.com:
RD Sandman
May 22, 2013, 1:32:05 PM5/22/13
to
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.
news:519C3EB2...@hotmail.com:
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
May 22, 2013, 1:32:26 PM5/22/13
to
RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:519C3F01...@hotmail.com:
You aren't even mentioned.
news:519C3F01...@hotmail.com:
SaPeIsMa
May 22, 2013, 3:05:33 PM5/22/13
to
"WangoTango" <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2bfefb7d9...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <5192FBA0...@hotmail.com>, traRvE...@hotmail.com
> says...
> 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 ?
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.
>> >
>> > 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.
>
> 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
May 22, 2013, 4:23:26 PM5/22/13
to
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:knj4sd$jch$1...@dont-email.me:
15th Amendment:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
24th Amendment:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or
other election for President or Vice President, for electors for
President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
26th Amendment:
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of
age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
news:knj4sd$jch$1...@dont-email.me:
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
May 22, 2013, 9:54:05 PM5/22/13
to
"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.
news:XnsA1C888405...@216.196.121.131...
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
May 23, 2013, 11:52:16 AM5/23/13
to
"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.
news:knjsl6$89f$2...@dont-email.me:
Constitution and where. I didn't claim that they were in the BoR.
SaPeIsMa
May 23, 2013, 1:11:56 PM5/23/13
to
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA1C95A49...@216.196.121.131...
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
May 23, 2013, 2:48:44 PM5/23/13
to
"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.....
;)
news:knlif9$8rp$1...@dont-email.me:
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
May 25, 2013, 12:53:21 AM5/25/13
to
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
>
> "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
RichTravsky
May 25, 2013, 12:53:52 AM5/25/13
to
RichTravsky
May 25, 2013, 12:54:51 AM5/25/13
to
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
>
> 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>
> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >> >>> /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.
RichTravsky
May 25, 2013, 12:57:30 AM5/25/13
to
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
>
> 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>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
a database. Ooops, you said
I am in favor of the universal background check but definitely not
the database that could come from it
RichTravsky
May 25, 2013, 12:58:35 AM5/25/13
to
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
>
> 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>
> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On May 5, 6:41 pm, Gronk <inva...@usenetlove.invalid>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >> >>> /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.
Scout
May 25, 2013, 10:41:15 AM5/25/13
to
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.
LOL.
Maybe you need to get some help.
Scout
May 25, 2013, 10:41:42 AM5/25/13
to
news:51A043E0...@hotmail.com...
And taken out of context.
Scout
May 25, 2013, 10:43:56 AM5/25/13
to
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.
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
May 25, 2013, 10:44:53 AM5/25/13
to
news:51A044BA...@hotmail.com...
Database of offenders - OK
Database of the checks and thus gun owners - Bad.
Do try to keep up.
Database of the checks and thus gun owners - Bad.
Do try to keep up.
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 25, 2013, 10:47:26 AM5/25/13
to
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:
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:5192FBA0...@hotmail.com...
>>> >> news:5190674D...@hotmail.com:
>>> >>
>>> >> > JohnJohnsn wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On May 11, 12:32 am, RichTravsky <traRvEskyM...@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.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > 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,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > 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.
felons can't vote, right?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Klaus Schadenfreude
May 25, 2013, 1:34:11 PM5/25/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:43:51 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <omj1q8lr6pk2r7e87...@4ax.com>,
>be prosecuted as perjury.
Like lying on a Form 4473 could be prosecuted, right?
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
>
>> You still have to prove you're a good citizen to vote. Normally,
>> felons can't vote, right?
>
>be prosecuted as perjury.
Like lying on a Form 4473 could be prosecuted, right?
RD Sandman
May 25, 2013, 4:36:02 PM5/25/13
to
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.
news:51A0441B...@hotmail.com:
gun purchases and I believe in photo ID to vote. You don't like it? Who
cares? I don't.
RD Sandman
May 25, 2013, 4:38:10 PM5/25/13
to
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.
news:51A044BA...@hotmail.com:
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?
of things, after all, you seem to enforce it whenever you post.
RD Sandman
May 25, 2013, 4:39:02 PM5/25/13
to
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:knqihj$4ln$1...@dont-email.me:
He can't.....too many moving parts.
news:knqihj$4ln$1...@dont-email.me:
RD Sandman
May 25, 2013, 4:41:37 PM5/25/13
to
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.
news:chine.bleu-E8291...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <knqihj$4ln$1...@dont-email.me>,
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
May 25, 2013, 4:42:26 PM5/25/13
to
RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:51A044FB...@hotmail.com:
Yep, I am one of the guys who can have guns and carry them.
news:51A044FB...@hotmail.com:
RD Sandman
May 25, 2013, 4:43:29 PM5/25/13
to
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?
>
>> 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?
> Lying can be prosecuted as perjury.
RichTravsky
May 27, 2013, 11:38:44 PM5/27/13
to
RichTravsky
May 27, 2013, 11:42:02 PM5/27/13
to
RichTravsky
May 27, 2013, 11:43:20 PM5/27/13
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages