Discussion:
Radical gestapo Dems threaten our gun rights with bills that misfire
(too old to reply)
Felcher Adam Schiff
2019-03-05 04:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives passed two bills
this week that blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of
criminals and sociopaths.

H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.

H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, would
take the burden off the government to approve or deny a gun sale
quickly. Right now the FBI must deny a purchase within three
days. This legislation would increase that to at least 10 days
in which the government is open. This is a big deal to a lot of
law-abiding people, as there are a lot of false-positives for
those with common names.

REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN: DEM GUN BILL THREATENS TO TURN GUN OWNERS
INTO CRIMINALS

This is a major political miscalculation.

All those blue-collar voters in states like Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Wisconsin who leaned Democrat before they voted for
Donald Trump in 2016 might think the Democrats’ lurch left – the
Green New Deal, “Medicare-for-all” and more – is all just
populist pandering to the party’s socialist wing.

But they won’t think that Democrats who are going after their
guns are only virtue signaling to their progressive base. To
America’s gun owners, this is personal.

Of course, neither of these bills is likely to be taken up or
passed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Even if they were,
it is unlikely that President Trump would sign legislation
that’s not designed to go after criminals, but that would only
make it more expensive and difficult to buy or sell firearms.

A big reason why Democrats in Congress think it’s now safe to go
after American freedom is that the mainstream media have spent
the last few months saying the politics of guns have changed and
that now a majority of the public wants their rights infringed
upon.

This is why both of these bills are really only about political
posturing for 2020. In their Beltway groupthink, Democrats have
convinced themselves that it’s to their political advantage to
push gun control.

Before getting into that, it’s worth noting that if Democrats in
Congress did get their way and these bills became law, a future
anti-gun president could declare a national emergency on gun
violence and thereby shut down the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS).

The excuse for doing so could be that we need to pause gun sales
as we have a “national conversation.” Such a move would be a
clever way to put a lot of gun stores and manufacturers out of
business.

A big reason why Democrats in Congress think it’s now safe to go
after American freedom is that the mainstream media have spent
the last few months saying the politics of guns have changed and
that now a majority of the public wants their rights infringed
upon.

“Over time, the evidence grew more irrefutable that by
abandoning gun control, Democrats were trying to placate voters
they had already lost, while slighting the voters they were
attracting,” reported CNN on its website in a story headlined
“Why Democrats are not afraid of gun control anymore.”

There is a lot of evidence to show this is a massive misreading
of the American electorate. An estimated 30 percent of American
adults say they personally own a gun. Another 11 percent say
they live with someone who does.

U.S. citizens alone own 393 million guns (about 46 percent of
the worldwide total of civilian-owned firearms, according to the
United Nations). This means that people in about 50 million
households in the U.S. own guns. That’s far more than the number
of people who play golf (25 million) or tennis (18 million) in
the U.S.

A big reason why Hillary Clinton lost states like Pennsylvania
and Michigan (each of which has more than 600,000 hunters – to
name one way to measure gun ownership) is that she made passing
gun-control and nominating Supreme Court justices who would take
away this fundamental civil right a central plank in her
campaign.

You’d think that Democrats would have learned this lesson when
Vice President Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the
2000 presidential election – and with it the presidency – after
he made weakening Second Amendment rights a big part of his
campaign. Democrats need to understand that Americans love their
freedom.

Even if they didn’t read “Hillbilly Elegy,” Democrats should
understand that a lot of blue-collar and unionized voters own
guns and that no law-abiding person likes being blamed for the
actions of criminals.

Not that gun owners only live in flyover country. Increasingly,
suburban Americans are getting guns for sport and self-defense.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), for example, has
for the past few years been putting out statistics on the
“changing face” of the American gun owner.

The NSSF’s preliminary 2018 numbers show that 49 percent of new
gun owners live in urban or suburban areas and that 48 percent
of these new gun owners are women.

Gun owners today are hardly just male rednecks who live out in
the provinces. Gun ownership is mainstream across America.
America’s 100 million-plus gun owners are why the National Rifle
Association has the sway it does. They are a big reason why
Trump won in 2016. They are a big reason why Democrats are
miscalculating now by moving against age-old American freedom.

Couple this with the disillusionment of moderate Democrats and
independents with the increasingly extreme left wing now
dominating the Democratic Party and you see a pattern here –
radical Democrats pursuing radical policies are planting the
seeds of their own downfall when voters cast ballots next year.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

All that, and I didn’t even touch on the big lies the Democrats
told when they passed these bills in the House. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for example, said on the House floor
Wednesday that the bill restricting gun transfers would “end an
epidemic of gun violence in America.”

This is simply not true and absurd. Criminals now primarily get
their guns by stealing them or buying them on the black market.
These bills wouldn’t impact criminals and their guns. These
bills would only further burden law-abiding Americans. Gun
owners know that.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/radical-dems-threaten-our-gun-
rights-with-bills-will-that-misfire
Snit
2019-03-05 04:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives passed two bills
this week that blame law-abiding gun owners for the actions of
criminals and sociopaths.
This is a direct lie.
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
This is not in any way blaming law-abiding gun owners for the actions of
others.
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, would
take the burden off the government to approve or deny a gun sale
quickly. Right now the FBI must deny a purchase within three
days. This legislation would increase that to at least 10 days
in which the government is open. This is a big deal to a lot of
law-abiding people, as there are a lot of false-positives for
those with common names.
This is not in any way blaming law-abiding gun owners for the actions of
others.
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN: DEM GUN BILL THREATENS TO TURN GUN OWNERS
INTO CRIMINALS
This is a major political miscalculation.
All those blue-collar voters in states like Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Wisconsin who leaned Democrat before they voted for
Donald Trump in 2016 might think the Democrats’ lurch left – the
Green New Deal, “Medicare-for-all” and more – is all just
populist pandering to the party’s socialist wing.
But they won’t think that Democrats who are going after their
guns are only virtue signaling to their progressive base. To
America’s gun owners, this is personal.
Of course, neither of these bills is likely to be taken up or
passed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Even if they were,
it is unlikely that President Trump would sign legislation
that’s not designed to go after criminals, but that would only
make it more expensive and difficult to buy or sell firearms.
A big reason why Democrats in Congress think it’s now safe to go
after American freedom is that the mainstream media have spent
the last few months saying the politics of guns have changed and
that now a majority of the public wants their rights infringed
upon.
This is why both of these bills are really only about political
posturing for 2020. In their Beltway groupthink, Democrats have
convinced themselves that it’s to their political advantage to
push gun control.
Before getting into that, it’s worth noting that if Democrats in
Congress did get their way and these bills became law, a future
anti-gun president could declare a national emergency on gun
violence and thereby shut down the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS).
The excuse for doing so could be that we need to pause gun sales
as we have a “national conversation.” Such a move would be a
clever way to put a lot of gun stores and manufacturers out of
business.
A big reason why Democrats in Congress think it’s now safe to go
after American freedom is that the mainstream media have spent
the last few months saying the politics of guns have changed and
that now a majority of the public wants their rights infringed
upon.
“Over time, the evidence grew more irrefutable that by
abandoning gun control, Democrats were trying to placate voters
they had already lost, while slighting the voters they were
attracting,” reported CNN on its website in a story headlined
“Why Democrats are not afraid of gun control anymore.”
There is a lot of evidence to show this is a massive misreading
of the American electorate. An estimated 30 percent of American
adults say they personally own a gun. Another 11 percent say
they live with someone who does.
U.S. citizens alone own 393 million guns (about 46 percent of
the worldwide total of civilian-owned firearms, according to the
United Nations). This means that people in about 50 million
households in the U.S. own guns. That’s far more than the number
of people who play golf (25 million) or tennis (18 million) in
the U.S.
A big reason why Hillary Clinton lost states like Pennsylvania
and Michigan (each of which has more than 600,000 hunters – to
name one way to measure gun ownership) is that she made passing
gun-control and nominating Supreme Court justices who would take
away this fundamental civil right a central plank in her
campaign.
You’d think that Democrats would have learned this lesson when
Vice President Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the
2000 presidential election – and with it the presidency – after
he made weakening Second Amendment rights a big part of his
campaign. Democrats need to understand that Americans love their
freedom.
Even if they didn’t read “Hillbilly Elegy,” Democrats should
understand that a lot of blue-collar and unionized voters own
guns and that no law-abiding person likes being blamed for the
actions of criminals.
Not that gun owners only live in flyover country. Increasingly,
suburban Americans are getting guns for sport and self-defense.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), for example, has
for the past few years been putting out statistics on the
“changing face” of the American gun owner.
The NSSF’s preliminary 2018 numbers show that 49 percent of new
gun owners live in urban or suburban areas and that 48 percent
of these new gun owners are women.
Gun owners today are hardly just male rednecks who live out in
the provinces. Gun ownership is mainstream across America.
America’s 100 million-plus gun owners are why the National Rifle
Association has the sway it does. They are a big reason why
Trump won in 2016. They are a big reason why Democrats are
miscalculating now by moving against age-old American freedom.
Couple this with the disillusionment of moderate Democrats and
independents with the increasingly extreme left wing now
dominating the Democratic Party and you see a pattern here –
radical Democrats pursuing radical policies are planting the
seeds of their own downfall when voters cast ballots next year.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
All that, and I didn’t even touch on the big lies the Democrats
told when they passed these bills in the House. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for example, said on the House floor
Wednesday that the bill restricting gun transfers would “end an
epidemic of gun violence in America.”
This is simply not true and absurd. Criminals now primarily get
their guns by stealing them or buying them on the black market.
These bills wouldn’t impact criminals and their guns. These
bills would only further burden law-abiding Americans. Gun
owners know that.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/radical-dems-threaten-our-gun-
rights-with-bills-will-that-misfire
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.


Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-03-05 12:04:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), "Felcher Adam Schiff"
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
No it doesn't, you idiot. Learn to read.
I'm only here to help.
2019-03-05 14:52:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)

No, you can't buy or sell a gun without a background check, either.
You might want to go read the bill because that, in a nutshell, is the
whole point. H.R. 8 is designed to close two major loopholes in our
laws: "The gun show loophole" which really has nothing to do with gun
shows, per se; the way our current law is written, it has been
narrowly applied only to FFL dealers... H.R. 8 would also include
estate transfers of guns, BTW. The other one is called "the Santa
Clause loophole" wherein someone may receive a gun as a gift or a loan
without a passing BC. (This was how Adam Lanza obtained his weapons.)
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, would
take the burden off the government to approve or deny a gun sale
quickly. Right now the FBI must deny a purchase within three
days. This legislation would increase that to at least 10 days
in which the government is open. This is a big deal to a lot of
law-abiding people, as there are a lot of false-positives for
those with common names.
This one closes "the Charleston loophole" which is known to systems
analysts as a "fail-open" safeguard. Think of fail-open like an ATM
that has a network discontinuity with your bank; however, dispenses
money anyway. (I mean, it's your money and you want it now!!!) The
UBC system should be a hard fail-closed... period. If it can't
validate you in ten days, the answer is "no".

The other point you raise is the fee. I agree ;-) I.e.: we shouldn't
have to pay for that service; the *government* should pay for it!
Snit
2019-03-05 15:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Post by I'm only here to help.
No, you can't buy or sell a gun without a background check, either.
You might want to go read the bill because that, in a nutshell, is the
whole point. H.R. 8 is designed to close two major loopholes in our
laws: "The gun show loophole" which really has nothing to do with gun
shows, per se; the way our current law is written, it has been
narrowly applied only to FFL dealers... H.R. 8 would also include
estate transfers of guns, BTW. The other one is called "the Santa
Clause loophole" wherein someone may receive a gun as a gift or a loan
without a passing BC. (This was how Adam Lanza obtained his weapons.)
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
Post by I'm only here to help.
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, would
take the burden off the government to approve or deny a gun sale
quickly. Right now the FBI must deny a purchase within three
days. This legislation would increase that to at least 10 days
in which the government is open. This is a big deal to a lot of
law-abiding people, as there are a lot of false-positives for
those with common names.
This one closes "the Charleston loophole" which is known to systems
analysts as a "fail-open" safeguard. Think of fail-open like an ATM
that has a network discontinuity with your bank; however, dispenses
money anyway. (I mean, it's your money and you want it now!!!) The
UBC system should be a hard fail-closed... period. If it can't
validate you in ten days, the answer is "no".
We should work to make sure the process is as quick as possible... but
if it is not possible within three days then extend it. Sure.
Post by I'm only here to help.
The other point you raise is the fee. I agree ;-) I.e.: we shouldn't
have to pay for that service; the *government* should pay for it!
Gun owners want things for free. Not surprising.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-03-05 15:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
Snit
2019-03-05 15:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-03-05 16:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
[crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Snit
2019-03-05 16:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
[crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it. Right? Or do you want to leave open this
loophole you deny exists?
Rudy Canoza
2019-03-05 16:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
[crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again: if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close. Redundant
actions should not be undertaken.
--
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no. Just no.
Snit
2019-03-05 16:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
On Tue,  5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense!  First of all, no responsible person would ever lend
anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
            [crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again:  if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close.
Redundant actions should not be undertaken.
Hey, if you do not think there is a loophole allowing people to easily
bypass the background check system in legally buying a gun then there is
no issue with closing a loophole that does not exist! I say let's close
it... and if it does not exist no harm in closing what is already closed!
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Rudy Canoza
2019-03-05 16:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
On Tue,  5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense!  First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
            [crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again:  if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close.
Redundant actions should not be undertaken.
Hey, if you do not think there is a loophole allowing people to easily
bypass the background check system in legally buying a gun then there is no
issue with closing a loophole that does not exist!
There is. I've instructed you on this already. Redundant action should
never be undertaken.
--
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no. Just no.
Snit
2019-03-05 16:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 08:05:11 -0700, Snit
Post by Snit
On Tue,  5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense!  First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
            [crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again:  if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close.
Redundant actions should not be undertaken.
Hey, if you do not think there is a loophole allowing people to easily
bypass the background check system in legally buying a gun then there
is no issue with closing a loophole that does not exist!
There is.  I've instructed you on this already.  Redundant action should
never be undertaken.
There is nothing redundant about preventing people from bypassing
background check laws... it is trivial to bypass them now EVEN IF you
deny the loophole exists.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

http://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308
Rudy Canoza
2019-03-05 16:53:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
On Tue,  5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense!  First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
            [crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again:  if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close.
Redundant actions should not be undertaken.
Hey, if you do not think there is a loophole allowing people to easily
bypass the background check system in legally buying a gun then there is
no issue with closing a loophole that does not exist!
There is.  I've instructed you on this already.  Redundant action should
never be undertaken.
There is nothing redundant about preventing people from bypassing
background check laws.
There is, of course, redundancy in "closing" a loophole that doesn't exist.

"such common knowledge as to be beyond obvious"
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:11:30 -0700
Message-ID: <***@mid.individual.net>
--
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no. Just no.
Snit
2019-03-05 18:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
On Tue,  5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense!  First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
            [crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again:  if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close.
Redundant actions should not be undertaken.
Hey, if you do not think there is a loophole allowing people to easily
bypass the background check system in legally buying a gun then there is
no issue with closing a loophole that does not exist!
There is.  I've instructed you on this already.  Redundant action should
never be undertaken.
There is nothing redundant about preventing people from bypassing
background check laws.
There is, of course, redundancy in "closing" a loophole that doesn't exist.
"such common knowledge as to be beyond obvious"
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:11:30 -0700
Better to be redundant than not close it.
Rudy Canoza
2019-03-05 19:04:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
On Tue,  5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense!  First of all, no responsible person would ever lend
anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
            [crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Again:  if there is no loophole, then there is nothing to close.
Redundant actions should not be undertaken.
Hey, if you do not think there is a loophole allowing people to easily
bypass the background check system in legally buying a gun then there is
no issue with closing a loophole that does not exist!
There is.  I've instructed you on this already.  Redundant action should
never be undertaken.
There is nothing redundant about preventing people from bypassing
background check laws.
There is, of course, redundancy in "closing" a loophole that doesn't exist.
"such common knowledge as to be beyond obvious"
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:11:30 -0700
Better to be redundant than not close it.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. Wasting effort is never good.
--
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no. Just no.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-03-05 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
[crickets.wav] (© 2019 All Rights Reserved)
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it. Works for
me.
You can't close a loophole that doesn't exist. There is no loophole.
Again: if there is no loophole
There is no loophole. Correct.
Post by Snit
to allow people to bypass background checks
then no problem with closing it.
Closing what?
Rudy Canoza
2019-03-05 16:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Snit
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, you can't lend someone a gun. (May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
If you own a deadly weapon YOU should be in control of it and
responsible for it.
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
Post by Snit
Close the loopholes. I am fine with that.
There is no loophole.
If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing it.
"If there is no loophole to you then you have no issue closing the loophole
that doesn't exist." Fair enough. Got it. Cool. OK.
--
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no. Just no.
I'm only here to help.
2019-03-05 22:34:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Mar 2019 07:09:54 -0800, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Wrong. Of course you can lend a gun to a friend. It's insanity to
think otherwise.
May I borrow your wife?

If you sell a gun, give a gun, rent a gun, or lend a gun, possession
of the gun transferred. It matters naught how, why, or for what time
period. If yer pal takes the gun out of your immediate control, it
requires a BC.

No exceptions.

And *now* there are no loopholes.

Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-03-05 15:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by I'm only here to help.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:03:08 +0100 (CET), in talk.politics.guns
Post by Felcher Adam Schiff
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, would
criminalize normal law-abiding behavior by stopping gun owners
from loaning a friend a gun to take to the range or from buying
or selling their firearms to others without first getting
permission from the FBI and paying fees.
Nonsense! First of all, no responsible person would ever lend anyone
a gun for any reason; furthermore, this is a perfect example of the
type of irresponsible behavior that the law is designed to prohibit.
No, it is not.
Post by I'm only here to help.
No, you can't lend someone a gun.
Yes, you can.
Post by I'm only here to help.
(May I borrow your daughter for the
afternoon?)
Non-sequitur winner for March.
Post by I'm only here to help.
No, you can't buy or sell a gun without a background check, either.
Criminals do it all the time.
Post by I'm only here to help.
You might want to go read the bill because that, in a nutshell, is the
whole point. H.R. 8 is designed to close two major loopholes
There is no loophole.
Post by I'm only here to help.
in our
laws: "The gun show loophole" which really has nothing to do with gun
shows, per se; the way our current law is written, it has been
narrowly applied only to FFL dealers... H.R. 8 would also include
estate transfers of guns, BTW. The other one is called "the Santa
Clause loophole" wherein someone may receive a gun as a gift or a loan
without a passing BC. (This was how Adam Lanza obtained his weapons.)
No, it isn't.
Loading...