1) A recent poll showed that nine in 10 Americans, and even eight in 10
NRA members, support universal background checks. Other polls have
contained similar findings. Given that your organization spends huge
amounts of member dues lobbying against regulations such as this, how
can you credibly claim to represent your rank and file membership?
Doesn?t this prove that the NRA is little more than a lobbying arm for
the multi-billion-dollar gun industry?
2) Under current law, would-be buyers of guns are widely subjected to
background checks. Is it your view that these current checks are
unconstitutional? If so, then how? If not, then how exactly would
expanding the current background check system infringe on the rights of
the law abiding?
3) Your organization repeatedly claims that the push to expand
background checks would create a national federal gun registry, with the
aim of confiscating guns. But current law actually prohibits the
creation of such a list, and mandates that information collected in the
process of green-lighting legal transfers be destroyed. And the current
proposal to expand the system doesn?t change this. So isn?t your claim
simply a lie?
4) Many law enforcement groups support the proposed assault weapons ban,
the ban on high capacity magazines, and expanded background checks. Why
should we take the word of the NRA over that of our brave and hard
working law enforcement professionals when it comes to how best to
ensure the safety of police officers on the front lines and of the
American public?
5) You recently said: ?The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is
a good guy with a gun.? Are you willing to support any new laws of any
kind to prevent the ?bad guy? from getting a gun in the first place?

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:27:00 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:00:31 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


1) A recent poll showed that nine in 10 Americans, and even eight in 10
NRA members, support universal background checks. Other polls have
contained similar findings. Given that your organization spends huge
amounts of member dues lobbying against regulations such as this, how
can you credibly claim to represent your rank and file membership?
Doesn?t this prove that the NRA is little more than a lobbying arm for
the multi-billion-dollar gun industry?

The devil is in the details. If the seller had access to the
background check system and the buyer had access to the stolen gun
system I would agree too.
I am not sure I would what a law that said every transfer had to be
brokered by a dealer.

How about every gun sale has to be registered, just like a car.


2) Under current law, would-be buyers of guns are widely subjected to
background checks. Is it your view that these current checks are
unconstitutional? If so, then how? If not, then how exactly would
expanding the current background check system infringe on the rights of
the law abiding?

If you forced people to use a dealer it is getting into shaky
territory.

Who's talkin about a dealer?

3) Your organization repeatedly claims that the push to expand
background checks would create a national federal gun registry, with the
aim of confiscating guns. But current law actually prohibits the
creation of such a list, and mandates that information collected in the
process of green-lighting legal transfers be destroyed. And the current
proposal to expand the system doesn?t change this. So isn?t your claim
simply a lie?

We are not talking about current law now are we. The question is about
what a future law might bring.

We're talkin about both. The NRA watered down so many laws that some
are useless.. just as indicated.

4) Many law enforcement groups support the proposed assault weapons ban,
the ban on high capacity magazines, and expanded background checks. Why
should we take the word of the NRA over that of our brave and hard
working law enforcement professionals when it comes to how best to
ensure the safety of police officers on the front lines and of the
American public?

Many law enforcement people do not agree. Why should we take the word
of the ones CNN interviews over the rest?

How about you find some that support assault weapons in the community.
I bet that's a tough job.

5) You recently said: ?The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is
a good guy with a gun.? Are you willing to support any new laws of any
kind to prevent the ?bad guy? from getting a gun in the first place?

There are hundreds of local, state and federal laws against bad guys
getting guns. Most are simply not enforced.

Most are unenforceable because they've been watered down by the NRA.
There are about 300 laws not thousands, which is another bs statement
from the crazies.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:42:00 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:11:57 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:55:05 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:32:00 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/12/13 7:27 PM, wrote:

The laws about interstate gun buying are pretty unambiguous.

They certainly don't apply in no paperwork between private sellers
states like Virginia, where the non-dealer dealers will sell you their
sisters if you have the right amount of folding green. These
non-documented sales have been "documented" dozens of times.

Do you really think a law would stop that?

Why are you planning on selling your sister again?

Why, are you a necrophilic among your ther perversions?

I don't plan on selling my or your sister. Maybe you should just rent
her out.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:40:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:11:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

How about every gun sale has to be registered, just like a car.

You can buy all the cars you want without titling them or registering
them in any way. You only need to do that if you want tags.

Don't know what it's like out there, but if you buy a car and the
former owner doesn't tell the DMV, you're responsible for it. If you
want to drive it or even park it on the street

Like I said, if you want tags.

Well, what the **** are you going to do with a car if you're not going
to drive it? Seems like it can't run too many people over sitting on
blocks.


or tow it somewhere it
has to be registered.

Not true at all.

True here.

If you decide it's junk, you have to file a
non-operation form.

Where do you live that requires that?
I can understand you would do that if you wanted to get your name off
the title but if you don't have your name on the title you just junk
it.

the Cal DMV wants you to do it, mostly to collect the $10 and you
don't have the pay the reg fees. I think you can transfer to a
reelative for low or no cost.


There are lots of "swamp buggies" around here that get bought and sold
without titles. They used to be a truck but now they are just off road
vehicles that are not titled at all. It is the same as an ATV or a
golf cart. You don't title them either unless you want tags

So are you talking about pure off-road ****? Ok well fine. Anything
that sits on the road or gets moved over a road has to have some sort
of reg.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:11:32 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:09:43 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:40:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:11:21 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

How about every gun sale has to be registered, just like a car.

You can buy all the cars you want without titling them or registering
them in any way. You only need to do that if you want tags.

Don't know what it's like out there, but if you buy a car and the
former owner doesn't tell the DMV, you're responsible for it. If you
want to drive it or even park it on the street

Like I said, if you want tags.

Well, what the **** are you going to do with a car if you're not going
to drive it? Seems like it can't run too many people over sitting on
blocks.


I can have a vehicle I only drive on private property without tags,
Farm vehicles or those ATVs are a good example
If I only kept my gun at my house or used it on private property,
using your analogy, why should I have to register it?.

How did the gun get there? You bought it on your property? It was made
there? Unless you made it, then you had to get it from somewhere by
someone who either bought it or made it. Of course, the difference is
that you can't really drive your tractor on the freeway mowing down
people. I guess you could kill your kids/wife with it or the ATV.




or tow it somewhere it
has to be registered.

Not true at all.

True here.

I bet you are wrong. A tow truck can tow a car without tags, even in
the people's republic of California. Otherwise how do they dispose of
abandoned cars?

How much would you like to bet? Here's the line from the DMV
website...

"California law requires vehicles to be currently registered if they
are driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways at
any time during the registration period."


If you decide it's junk, you have to file a
non-operation form.

Where do you live that requires that?
I can understand you would do that if you wanted to get your name off
the title but if you don't have your name on the title you just junk
it.

the Cal DMV wants you to do it, mostly to collect the $10 and you
don't have the pay the reg fees. I think you can transfer to a
reelative for low or no cost.

Again, if you are not buying tags, how do they even know?

The asshole who sold it to you will either let the DMV know or he'll
be responsible if something happens.



There are lots of "swamp buggies" around here that get bought and sold
without titles. They used to be a truck but now they are just off road
vehicles that are not titled at all. It is the same as an ATV or a
golf cart. You don't title them either unless you want tags

So are you talking about pure off-road ****? Ok well fine. Anything
that sits on the road or gets moved over a road has to have some sort
of reg.

Anything that gets parked or driven on the road but you can tow or put
it up on a truck or trailer without tags. Do all of those Baha Buggies
have tags? I have never seen one with a tag.

Don't know about "anything". Do know about cars that are towed. Don't
believe me? Well ****ing look it up.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:21:44 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:59:14 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:11:32 -0400, wrote:


I can have a vehicle I only drive on private property without tags,
Farm vehicles or those ATVs are a good example
If I only kept my gun at my house or used it on private property,
using your analogy, why should I have to register it?.

How did the gun get there? You bought it on your property? It was made
there? Unless you made it, then you had to get it from somewhere by
someone who either bought it or made it. Of course, the difference is
that you can't really drive your tractor on the freeway mowing down
people. I guess you could kill your kids/wife with it or the ATV.

I already had my gun before the registration law was passed.

I have no problem with that. But if you sell it, then that transaction
should be recorded.


or tow it somewhere it
has to be registered.

Not true at all.

True here.

I bet you are wrong. A tow truck can tow a car without tags, even in
the people's republic of California. Otherwise how do they dispose of
abandoned cars?

How much would you like to bet? Here's the line from the DMV
website...

"California law requires vehicles to be currently registered if they
are driven, towed, stored, or parked on public roads or highways at
any time during the registration period."

Ah California
Nothing shocks me there.
How about when they are on a flatbed?

Doesn't matter... here's the link:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures...cts/ffvr01.htm




If you decide it's junk, you have to file a
non-operation form.

Where do you live that requires that?
I can understand you would do that if you wanted to get your name off
the title but if you don't have your name on the title you just junk
it.

the Cal DMV wants you to do it, mostly to collect the $10 and you
don't have the pay the reg fees. I think you can transfer to a
reelative for low or no cost.

Again, if you are not buying tags, how do they even know?

The asshole who sold it to you will either let the DMV know or he'll
be responsible if something happens.




There are lots of "swamp buggies" around here that get bought and sold
without titles. They used to be a truck but now they are just off road
vehicles that are not titled at all. It is the same as an ATV or a
golf cart. You don't title them either unless you want tags

So are you talking about pure off-road ****? Ok well fine. Anything
that sits on the road or gets moved over a road has to have some sort
of reg.

Anything that gets parked or driven on the road but you can tow or put
it up on a truck or trailer without tags. Do all of those Baha Buggies
have tags? I have never seen one with a tag.

Don't know about "anything". Do know about cars that are towed. Don't
believe me? Well ****ing look it up.

I did look it up. California requires a sticker on off highway
vehicles "operated on public land" including dune buggies.
Florida exempts swamp buggies, dune buggies and similar vehicles.
Again the only vehicles that require the sticker are commercially
built ATVs if they are operated on public lands. I have never actually
seen a sticker and there are a dozen ATVs in my neighborhood.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:06:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:00:31 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:


1) A recent poll showed that nine in 10 Americans, and even eight in 10
NRA members, support universal background checks. Other polls have
contained similar findings. Given that your organization spends huge
amounts of member dues lobbying against regulations such as this, how
can you credibly claim to represent your rank and file membership?
Doesn?t this prove that the NRA is little more than a lobbying arm for
the multi-billion-dollar gun industry?

Nobody in their right mind thinks background checks will end violence.
No, your silly string of logic is just that, silly string.

They won't "end" violence, but they will make some progress toward
reducing violence.

2) Under current law, would-be buyers of guns are widely subjected to
background checks. Is it your view that these current checks are
unconstitutional? If so, then how? If not, then how exactly would
expanding the current background check system infringe on the rights of
the law abiding?

Background checks treated with equal disdain as FISA law should be a
self evident problem. What about this don't you get?

Huh? What does FISA have to do with reducing gun violence?

3) Your organization repeatedly claims that the push to expand
background checks would create a national federal gun registry, with the
aim of confiscating guns. But current law actually prohibits the
creation of such a list, and mandates that information collected in the
process of green-lighting legal transfers be destroyed. And the current
proposal to expand the system doesn?t change this. So isn?t your claim
simply a lie?

Since when has "current law" affected the behavior of the lawless?
Either from the "hood," or blue suited, or white collared. What about
this don't you get?

Seatbelt laws and the fines associated with them. Reduces the illegal
behavior of those not following the law initially by imposing fines.
Also, side benefit, saves lives. Yeah, what about thiss don't you get.
4) Many law enforcement groups support the proposed assault weapons
ban,
the ban on high capacity magazines, and expanded background checks. Why
should we take the word of the NRA over that of our brave and hard
working law enforcement professionals when it comes to how best to
ensure the safety of police officers on the front lines and of the
American public?

How many law enforcement groups support the law? Why the huge
disparity in opinion? What about this don't you get?

Most do. Most of the public does. There's little disparity. What about
this don't you get.


5) You recently said: ?The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is
a good guy with a gun.? Are you willing to support any new laws of any
kind to prevent the ?bad guy? from getting a gun in the first place?

Give me ONE, just ONE example of any law, EVER passed, with ANY
penalty, that *prevents* ANY form of behavior. Laws punish, they don't
change behavior. What about this don't you get?

Seat belts. Even ****ing criminals wear seatbelts dip****.

On 3/25/13 9:34 PM, wrote:

Really. I do feel sorry for you and your family. You have no balls, no
courage, no gun, and you and yours are subject to the whims of the
violent *******s that wear seat belts. You live in a most peculiar
dream world. It must be nice there, but I fear it is not reality.


Wow...what an unreconstructed rightwing asshole you are.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:55:07 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:37:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/25/13 9:34 PM, wrote:

Really. I do feel sorry for you and your family. You have no balls, no
courage, no gun, and you and yours are subject to the whims of the
violent *******s that wear seat belts. You live in a most peculiar
dream world. It must be nice there, but I fear it is not reality.


Wow...what an unreconstructed rightwing asshole you are.

Harry, I'm not a right wing anything. I have been the victim of
criminals. Had I walked in on them, the perps already made it clear to
the COPS that they would have killed me or anybody else that walked in
on them. It is all about their code of earning "respect." Well, I
don't respect them and my family still has nightmares about our home,
property, and space being violated.

Had I walked in on them then, as now, we would have decided whether
crime pays or not. I'm trained, but they are punks.

I wonder how many of you anti-gun folks could live with watching your
family abused by hateful criminals while you lived out your anti-gun
fantasies.

As much as we might disagree, I hope that never comes to pass. There
are people out there that hate both of us and wish us both harm.

Hate me if you will, but you owe your family protection. Nobody will
be there for them faster and more committed than you.

Your call, man. Make the right (for you) decision.

You're not much of anything. You're stupid and can't read. You just
got done wishing all the bad things would happen, then you turn 180
and claim you don't. **** you.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:55:07 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:37:11 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/25/13 9:34 PM, wrote:

Really. I do feel sorry for you and your family. You have no balls, no
courage, no gun, and you and yours are subject to the whims of the
violent *******s that wear seat belts. You live in a most peculiar
dream world. It must be nice there, but I fear it is not reality.


Wow...what an unreconstructed rightwing asshole you are.

Harry, I'm not a right wing anything. I have been the victim of
criminals. Had I walked in on them, the perps already made it clear to
the COPS that they would have killed me or anybody else that walked in
on them. It is all about their code of earning "respect." Well, I
don't respect them and my family still has nightmares about our home,
property, and space being violated.

Had I walked in on them then, as now, we would have decided whether
crime pays or not. I'm trained, but they are punks.

I wonder how many of you anti-gun folks could live with watching your
family abused by hateful criminals while you lived out your anti-gun
fantasies.

As much as we might disagree, I hope that never comes to pass. There
are people out there that hate both of us and wish us both harm.

Hate me if you will, but you owe your family protection. Nobody will
be there for them faster and more committed than you.

Your call, man. Make the right (for you) decision.

ESAD has a boatload of guns. He has to make an anti-gun pretense to keep jps as a bosom buddy.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort.