Discussion:
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
Add Reply
a425couple
2017-05-27 16:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
BY DORI MONSON SHOW
MAY 25, 2017 AT 2:59 PM

Bias crimes investigators are searching for a man who pulled a gun on
two people Wednesday evening on Rainier Avenue. (Seattle Police Department)
LISTEN: What has happened under Seattle's gun tax

Ever since Seattle passed a gun tax, firearm sales have dropped but
shootings have dramatically risen. The gun violence situation is so bad
in Seattle that activists are pressuring the city to admit its tax has
been a “monumental failure.”

“It’s unfortunate, it’s the law abiding citizens that end up suffering
and the tax payers who get taken to the cleaners,” Alan Gottlieb told
the Dori Monson Show.

“Gun violence and drug violence is an enforcement problem, it’s not a
matter of getting people’s guns and ammunition away from them,” he said.
“It’s a matter of getting these bad guys off the streets. It’s something
that Seattle is just not doing right now.”

RELATED: King County cops teaming up to take on region’s rising gun violence

Instead, Seattle passed a gun tax in August 2015. It was aimed at
funding gun-violence prevention, research and other programs to mitigate
the public costs of gun-related crimes. The effort was spearheaded by
Councilmember Tim Burgess. It places a $25 tax on guns sold in Seattle,
as well as up to a 5-cent fee on each round.

Under Seattle’s gun tax
A year and nine months later, Seattle is experiencing a considerable
rise in gun violence. There were 36 shootings and four fatalities in the
first five months of 2017. Reports of shots fired rose to 155 by May 15
– 11 more than the same time in 2015, and 23 more than this time last year.

Even before the rise in violence, left-leaning critics had wondered if
the gun tax was misguided. Gottlieb is now parading the statistics as
proof that Seattle’s gun tax has not worked.

“According to the police department’s own statistics in Seattle, a
startling 70 percent increase in the number of police calls for gun
shots, and an alarming 30 percent increase in the number of shooting
victims.

Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.

“They projected it was going to raise between $300,000 and $500,000 each
year, and we had to go to court to find out how much they raised which
they won’t say,” Gottlieb said. “Now they have come out and said it’s
under $200,000, but they won’t say how much under $200,000.”

“Basically what they’ve done is drive gun dealers out of the City of
Seattle and sales of guns and ammunition have gone elsewhere … It’s had
no impact positively on violent crime in the city. In fact, it’s
probably had an inverse affect.”

https://mynorthwest.com/643259/what-has-happened-under-seattles-gun-tax/
pyotr filipivich
2017-05-27 16:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Let the Record show that a425couple <***@hotmail.com> on or
about Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700 did write, type or otherwise
Post by a425couple
Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.
"skipped town" - they up and moved in the middle of the night,
left no forwarding address and stiffed their creditors?

The Seattle Time's Biases are showing one more time.
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
First-Post
2017-05-27 21:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
BY DORI MONSON SHOW
MAY 25, 2017 AT 2:59 PM
Bias crimes investigators are searching for a man who pulled a gun on
two people Wednesday evening on Rainier Avenue. (Seattle Police Department)
LISTEN: What has happened under Seattle's gun tax
Ever since Seattle passed a gun tax, firearm sales have dropped but
shootings have dramatically risen. The gun violence situation is so bad
in Seattle that activists are pressuring the city to admit its tax has
been a “monumental failure.”
“It’s unfortunate, it’s the law abiding citizens that end up suffering
and the tax payers who get taken to the cleaners,” Alan Gottlieb told
the Dori Monson Show.
“Gun violence and drug violence is an enforcement problem, it’s not a
matter of getting people’s guns and ammunition away from them,” he said.
“It’s a matter of getting these bad guys off the streets. It’s something
that Seattle is just not doing right now.”
RELATED: King County cops teaming up to take on region’s rising gun violence
Instead, Seattle passed a gun tax in August 2015. It was aimed at
funding gun-violence prevention, research and other programs to mitigate
the public costs of gun-related crimes. The effort was spearheaded by
Councilmember Tim Burgess. It places a $25 tax on guns sold in Seattle,
as well as up to a 5-cent fee on each round.
Under Seattle’s gun tax
A year and nine months later, Seattle is experiencing a considerable
rise in gun violence. There were 36 shootings and four fatalities in the
first five months of 2017. Reports of shots fired rose to 155 by May 15
– 11 more than the same time in 2015, and 23 more than this time last year.
Even before the rise in violence, left-leaning critics had wondered if
the gun tax was misguided. Gottlieb is now parading the statistics as
proof that Seattle’s gun tax has not worked.
“According to the police department’s own statistics in Seattle, a
startling 70 percent increase in the number of police calls for gun
shots, and an alarming 30 percent increase in the number of shooting
victims.
Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.
“They projected it was going to raise between $300,000 and $500,000 each
year, and we had to go to court to find out how much they raised which
they won’t say,” Gottlieb said. “Now they have come out and said it’s
under $200,000, but they won’t say how much under $200,000.”
“Basically what they’ve done is drive gun dealers out of the City of
Seattle and sales of guns and ammunition have gone elsewhere … It’s had
no impact positively on violent crime in the city. In fact, it’s
probably had an inverse affect.”
https://mynorthwest.com/643259/what-has-happened-under-seattles-gun-tax/
Well DUH. Did the idiots really expect criminals to pay such a tax or
even purchase their guns in legal gun stores?

Another perfect example of left wing feel good legislation that does
jack squat other than inflame the bad.
Scout
2017-05-27 22:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
BY DORI MONSON SHOW
MAY 25, 2017 AT 2:59 PM
Bias crimes investigators are searching for a man who pulled a gun on
two people Wednesday evening on Rainier Avenue. (Seattle Police Department)
LISTEN: What has happened under Seattle's gun tax
Ever since Seattle passed a gun tax, firearm sales have dropped but
shootings have dramatically risen. The gun violence situation is so bad
in Seattle that activists are pressuring the city to admit its tax has
been a “monumental failure.”
“It’s unfortunate, it’s the law abiding citizens that end up suffering
and the tax payers who get taken to the cleaners,” Alan Gottlieb told
the Dori Monson Show.
“Gun violence and drug violence is an enforcement problem, it’s not a
matter of getting people’s guns and ammunition away from them,” he said.
“It’s a matter of getting these bad guys off the streets. It’s something
that Seattle is just not doing right now.”
RELATED: King County cops teaming up to take on region’s rising gun violence
Instead, Seattle passed a gun tax in August 2015. It was aimed at
funding gun-violence prevention, research and other programs to mitigate
the public costs of gun-related crimes. The effort was spearheaded by
Councilmember Tim Burgess. It places a $25 tax on guns sold in Seattle,
as well as up to a 5-cent fee on each round.
Under Seattle’s gun tax
A year and nine months later, Seattle is experiencing a considerable
rise in gun violence. There were 36 shootings and four fatalities in the
first five months of 2017. Reports of shots fired rose to 155 by May 15
– 11 more than the same time in 2015, and 23 more than this time last year.
Even before the rise in violence, left-leaning critics had wondered if
the gun tax was misguided. Gottlieb is now parading the statistics as
proof that Seattle’s gun tax has not worked.
“According to the police department’s own statistics in Seattle, a
startling 70 percent increase in the number of police calls for gun
shots, and an alarming 30 percent increase in the number of shooting
victims.
Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.
“They projected it was going to raise between $300,000 and $500,000 each
year, and we had to go to court to find out how much they raised which
they won’t say,” Gottlieb said. “Now they have come out and said it’s
under $200,000, but they won’t say how much under $200,000.”
“Basically what they’ve done is drive gun dealers out of the City of
Seattle and sales of guns and ammunition have gone elsewhere … It’s had
no impact positively on violent crime in the city. In fact, it’s
probably had an inverse affect.”
https://mynorthwest.com/643259/what-has-happened-under-seattles-gun-tax/
Well DUH. Did the idiots really expect criminals to pay such a tax or
even purchase their guns in legal gun stores?
Another perfect example of left wing feel good legislation that does
jack squat other than inflame the bad.
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
After all SCOTUS upheld a tax on paper and printer's ink as a violation of
the 1st Amendment. Imposing a tax on guns and ammo would seem to be a
similar violation.

Further. I would have to get the court to order the city to produce their
accounting including on exactly what the money collected was spent for.

Any new programs? Research? Where did the money go?
Just Wondering
2017-05-27 22:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by First-Post
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
BY DORI MONSON SHOW
MAY 25, 2017 AT 2:59 PM
Bias crimes investigators are searching for a man who pulled a gun on
two people Wednesday evening on Rainier Avenue. (Seattle Police Department)
LISTEN: What has happened under Seattle's gun tax
Ever since Seattle passed a gun tax, firearm sales have dropped but
shootings have dramatically risen. The gun violence situation is so bad
in Seattle that activists are pressuring the city to admit its tax has
been a “monumental failure.”
“It’s unfortunate, it’s the law abiding citizens that end up suffering
and the tax payers who get taken to the cleaners,” Alan Gottlieb told
the Dori Monson Show.
“Gun violence and drug violence is an enforcement problem, it’s not a
matter of getting people’s guns and ammunition away from them,” he said.
“It’s a matter of getting these bad guys off the streets. It’s something
that Seattle is just not doing right now.”
RELATED: King County cops teaming up to take on region’s rising gun violence
Instead, Seattle passed a gun tax in August 2015. It was aimed at
funding gun-violence prevention, research and other programs to mitigate
the public costs of gun-related crimes. The effort was spearheaded by
Councilmember Tim Burgess. It places a $25 tax on guns sold in Seattle,
as well as up to a 5-cent fee on each round.
Under Seattle’s gun tax
A year and nine months later, Seattle is experiencing a considerable
rise in gun violence. There were 36 shootings and four fatalities in the
first five months of 2017. Reports of shots fired rose to 155 by May 15
– 11 more than the same time in 2015, and 23 more than this time last year.
Even before the rise in violence, left-leaning critics had wondered if
the gun tax was misguided. Gottlieb is now parading the statistics as
proof that Seattle’s gun tax has not worked.
“According to the police department’s own statistics in Seattle, a
startling 70 percent increase in the number of police calls for gun
shots, and an alarming 30 percent increase in the number of shooting
victims.
Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.
“They projected it was going to raise between $300,000 and $500,000 each
year, and we had to go to court to find out how much they raised which
they won’t say,” Gottlieb said. “Now they have come out and said it’s
under $200,000, but they won’t say how much under $200,000.”
“Basically what they’ve done is drive gun dealers out of the City of
Seattle and sales of guns and ammunition have gone elsewhere … It’s had
no impact positively on violent crime in the city. In fact, it’s
probably had an inverse affect.”
https://mynorthwest.com/643259/what-has-happened-under-seattles-gun-tax/
Well DUH. Did the idiots really expect criminals to pay such a tax or
even purchase their guns in legal gun stores?
Another perfect example of left wing feel good legislation that does
jack squat other than inflame the bad.
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional
tax? After all SCOTUS upheld a tax on paper and printer's ink as a
violation of the 1st Amendment. Imposing a tax on guns and ammo would
seem to be a similar violation.
Further. I would have to get the court to order the city to
produce their accounting including on exactly what the money
collected was spent for.
Also an accounting of what Seattle lost in sales taxes because of
gun stores that moved out of Seattle to nearby towns. It wouldn't
take much to make it a net revenue loss.
"Precise Shooter, a smaller gun shop in Seattle, moved 16 miles outside
of the city to Lynnwood on the day the tax took effect. . . . Solyanik
said his small business previously generated about $50,000 per year in
city sales tax. With Precise Shooter's move out of the city, Seattle
will lose those funds and collect nothing from the new tax, he said."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/24/critics-fire-back-at-seattle-gun-ammo-tax-claim-is-aimed-at-killing-business.html
First-Post
2017-05-27 22:56:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by First-Post
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
BY DORI MONSON SHOW
MAY 25, 2017 AT 2:59 PM
Bias crimes investigators are searching for a man who pulled a gun on
two people Wednesday evening on Rainier Avenue. (Seattle Police Department)
LISTEN: What has happened under Seattle's gun tax
Ever since Seattle passed a gun tax, firearm sales have dropped but
shootings have dramatically risen. The gun violence situation is so bad
in Seattle that activists are pressuring the city to admit its tax has
been a “monumental failure.”
“It’s unfortunate, it’s the law abiding citizens that end up suffering
and the tax payers who get taken to the cleaners,” Alan Gottlieb told
the Dori Monson Show.
“Gun violence and drug violence is an enforcement problem, it’s not a
matter of getting people’s guns and ammunition away from them,” he said.
“It’s a matter of getting these bad guys off the streets. It’s something
that Seattle is just not doing right now.”
RELATED: King County cops teaming up to take on region’s rising gun violence
Instead, Seattle passed a gun tax in August 2015. It was aimed at
funding gun-violence prevention, research and other programs to mitigate
the public costs of gun-related crimes. The effort was spearheaded by
Councilmember Tim Burgess. It places a $25 tax on guns sold in Seattle,
as well as up to a 5-cent fee on each round.
Under Seattle’s gun tax
A year and nine months later, Seattle is experiencing a considerable
rise in gun violence. There were 36 shootings and four fatalities in the
first five months of 2017. Reports of shots fired rose to 155 by May 15
– 11 more than the same time in 2015, and 23 more than this time last year.
Even before the rise in violence, left-leaning critics had wondered if
the gun tax was misguided. Gottlieb is now parading the statistics as
proof that Seattle’s gun tax has not worked.
“According to the police department’s own statistics in Seattle, a
startling 70 percent increase in the number of police calls for gun
shots, and an alarming 30 percent increase in the number of shooting
victims.
Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.
“They projected it was going to raise between $300,000 and $500,000 each
year, and we had to go to court to find out how much they raised which
they won’t say,” Gottlieb said. “Now they have come out and said it’s
under $200,000, but they won’t say how much under $200,000.”
“Basically what they’ve done is drive gun dealers out of the City of
Seattle and sales of guns and ammunition have gone elsewhere … It’s had
no impact positively on violent crime in the city. In fact, it’s
probably had an inverse affect.”
https://mynorthwest.com/643259/what-has-happened-under-seattles-gun-tax/
Well DUH. Did the idiots really expect criminals to pay such a tax or
even purchase their guns in legal gun stores?
Another perfect example of left wing feel good legislation that does
jack squat other than inflame the bad.
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
After all SCOTUS upheld a tax on paper and printer's ink as a violation of
the 1st Amendment. Imposing a tax on guns and ammo would seem to be a
similar violation.
Further. I would have to get the court to order the city to produce their
accounting including on exactly what the money collected was spent for.
Any new programs? Research? Where did the money go?
In Portland? Probably to benefit illegal immigrants.
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-27 23:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by First-Post
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by First-Post
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
BY DORI MONSON SHOW
MAY 25, 2017 AT 2:59 PM
Bias crimes investigators are searching for a man who pulled a gun on
two people Wednesday evening on Rainier Avenue. (Seattle Police Department)
LISTEN: What has happened under Seattle's gun tax
Ever since Seattle passed a gun tax, firearm sales have dropped but
shootings have dramatically risen. The gun violence situation is so bad
in Seattle that activists are pressuring the city to admit its tax has
been a “monumental failure.”
“It’s unfortunate, it’s the law abiding citizens that end up suffering
and the tax payers who get taken to the cleaners,” Alan Gottlieb told
the Dori Monson Show.
“Gun violence and drug violence is an enforcement problem, it’s not a
matter of getting people’s guns and ammunition away from them,” he said.
“It’s a matter of getting these bad guys off the streets. It’s something
that Seattle is just not doing right now.”
RELATED: King County cops teaming up to take on region’s rising gun violence
Instead, Seattle passed a gun tax in August 2015. It was aimed at
funding gun-violence prevention, research and other programs to mitigate
the public costs of gun-related crimes. The effort was spearheaded by
Councilmember Tim Burgess. It places a $25 tax on guns sold in Seattle,
as well as up to a 5-cent fee on each round.
Under Seattle’s gun tax
A year and nine months later, Seattle is experiencing a considerable
rise in gun violence. There were 36 shootings and four fatalities in the
first five months of 2017. Reports of shots fired rose to 155 by May 15
– 11 more than the same time in 2015, and 23 more than this time last year.
Even before the rise in violence, left-leaning critics had wondered if
the gun tax was misguided. Gottlieb is now parading the statistics as
proof that Seattle’s gun tax has not worked.
“According to the police department’s own statistics in Seattle, a
startling 70 percent increase in the number of police calls for gun
shots, and an alarming 30 percent increase in the number of shooting
victims.
Perhaps the limited success is due to the fact that Seattle never took
in the projected revenue it expected from the tax – as much as $500,000.
The city won’t say how much money its gun tax has produced, only that it
is less than $200,000. The reduction is partly because after the gun tax
was passed, some gun retailers skipped town.
“They projected it was going to raise between $300,000 and $500,000 each
year, and we had to go to court to find out how much they raised which
they won’t say,” Gottlieb said. “Now they have come out and said it’s
under $200,000, but they won’t say how much under $200,000.”
“Basically what they’ve done is drive gun dealers out of the City of
Seattle and sales of guns and ammunition have gone elsewhere … It’s had
no impact positively on violent crime in the city. In fact, it’s
probably had an inverse affect.”
https://mynorthwest.com/643259/what-has-happened-under-seattles-gun-tax/
Well DUH. Did the idiots really expect criminals to pay such a tax or
even purchase their guns in legal gun stores?
Another perfect example of left wing feel good legislation that does
jack squat other than inflame the bad.
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
After all SCOTUS upheld a tax on paper and printer's ink as a violation of
the 1st Amendment. Imposing a tax on guns and ammo would seem to be a
similar violation.
Further. I would have to get the court to order the city to produce their
accounting including on exactly what the money collected was spent for.
Any new programs? Research? Where did the money go?
In Portland? Probably to benefit illegal immigrants.
Or possibly for salting slugs...

;-)))
!Jones
2017-05-28 01:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?

There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".

There is no constitutional reason not to tax guns... or churches, for
that matter. The gun lobby just has a powerful, *very* well financed
lobby. (Jesus has a pretty decent lobby, also.)

Jones
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-05-28 11:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?
You obviously haven't, if you're pulling out THAT old chestnut.

But go ahead and show us the federal agency that specifically
regulates teddy bears.

While you're at it, show us the federal agency that licenses
teddy-bear manufacturers, wholesalers, and vendors.

Show us how Teddy-bear stores have to keep permanent records on all
their customers, and make those records available for government
inspection.

Show us how you need permission from the FBI to buy a teddy bear.

You stupid, stupid asshole.

I'm removing the "x-no-idiots: yes" line so you can see this and
reply.
max headroom
2017-05-28 15:25:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.

"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional reason not to tax guns... or churches, for
that matter....
Or assemblies, or speeches, or voting.
Scout
2017-05-28 18:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.
"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional reason not to tax guns... or churches, for
that matter....
Or assemblies, or speeches, or voting.
Hmm... Let's not forget all the background checks, fingerprinting, fees,
taxes and such to own a printer which can print more than one page without
having to push the button again. Oh, and you can only use such printers that
were built and registered before 1986. All other such printers are
restricted to government and LEO use only.
Scout
2017-05-28 18:53:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.
"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional reason not to tax guns... or churches, for
that matter....
Or assemblies, or speeches, or voting.
Hmm... Let's not forget all the background checks, fingerprinting, fees,
taxes and such to own a printer which can print more than one page without
having to push the button again. Oh, and you can only use such printers
that were built and registered before 1986. All other such printers are
restricted to government and LEO use only.
Oh, and anything over a page of 8.5 by 11 is considered a printer of mass
publication and even more highly restricted.
!Jones
2017-05-28 19:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.
"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
OK, Headly, I've cleaned up my filters.

It's difficult to say what the second amendment means; we're going to
argue about that from now on. Don't you wish the framers had
exercised the same clarity on the second as they did on the first? I
mean: "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't really need a linguist
to interpret it for us, does it?

The second amendment didn't really need its own separate amendment; it
could have been easily rolled into the first:

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the right of the people to
keep and bear arms." Now, wouldn't that have been clean?

Well, they did it differently because people who keep and bear arms
*also* need checks and balances... and that's what we're going to have
to do sooner or later; sooner is better.

Jones
tyre biter
2017-05-28 19:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.
"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
OK, Headly, I've cleaned up my filters.
It's difficult to say what the second amendment means;
You lying gun-grabbing traitor!

it is NOT difficult to "say what the second amendment means" - any
patriot KNOWS!

That leaves you out, burnout.

Die real soon, you asshole.
max headroom
2017-05-28 20:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.
"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
OK, Headly, I've cleaned up my filters.
It's difficult to say what the second amendment means; ...
No, it isn't. It's only difficult if you don't like it and want to twist its meaning to something
more agreeable.
!Jones
2017-05-28 21:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:59:30 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
No, it isn't. It's only difficult if you don't like it and want to twist its meaning to something
more agreeable.
Well, Headley, if that were so, we wouldn't be having this discussion,
would we?

I mean, your reply is typical; heck, the NRA truncated it to a form
they liked when they chiseled it above their portal in D.C., did they
naught?

Maybe we make too much of "well regulated"; however, you want to
delete it completely. I'm saying that *it's there*! Deal with it!

You know, the "well regulated militia" were the 7,000 (nominal) men
who cut and ran at Bladensburg, so it doesn't surprise me that you
don't like the term... they really haven't done much for us. Since
then, what's their moment of glory? Taking over the bird sanctuary in
Oregon?

[Feds]: "Hey, LaVoy! Here's some regulation for you!" <POW! POW!>

[Well Regulated Militia]: "Feets, doan fail me now!!!"

Jones
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-28 21:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Maybe we make too much of "well regulated"; however, you want to
delete it completely. I'm saying that*it's there*! Deal with it!
YOU DUMB FUCKNUT!

It refers ONLY to "the militia"!

Thats it - period.

GROW A DAMNED BRAIN, YOU GUN GRABBING FASCIST FUCKWIT!
max headroom
2017-05-28 22:45:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 13:59:30 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
No, it isn't. It's only difficult if you don't like it and want to twist its
meaning to something more agreeable.
Well, Headley, if that were so, we wouldn't be having this discussion,
would we?
We're trying to educate you; you're trying to convince us we're wrong.
Post by !Jones
I mean, your reply is typical; heck, the NRA truncated it to a form
they liked when they chiseled it above their portal in D.C., did they
naught?
Maybe we make too much of "well regulated"; however, you want to
delete it completely. I'm saying that *it's there*! Deal with it!
The Supremes already did.
Post by !Jones
You know, the "well regulated militia" were the 7,000 (nominal) men
who cut and ran at Bladensburg, so it doesn't surprise me that you
don't like the term... they really haven't done much for us. Since
then, what's their moment of glory?...
Winning the Civil War.
wade
2017-05-30 03:14:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 29 May 2017 18:16:03 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
They can also declare your attempt to deny civil rights a crime.
I suppose. Once upon a time, the right to keep slaves was the law of
our land... life is change.
While lying in the face of facts continues in the woo woo land
of liberalism.
Scout
2017-05-29 00:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
There's part of your problem-- your copy is faulty.
"Well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not "people" or "arms."
OK, Headly, I've cleaned up my filters.
It's difficult to say what the second amendment means; ...
On the contrary, even a grade school English student can diagram the 2nd
Amendment, identify the main clause, including the subject of the cause and
the action to be taken on that subject.

Only you seem to feel that a subordinate clause holds the main idea of the
sentence.
Post by max headroom
No, it isn't. It's only difficult if you don't like it and want to twist
its meaning to something
more agreeable.
Which explains why he has so much trouble figuring out what the 2nd means.

But hey, let's ask an expert:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Somehow, I bet Jones still wont be able to figure it out even with an expert
explaining it.
!Jones
2017-05-28 19:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Hmm... Let's not forget all the background checks, fingerprinting, fees,
taxes and such to own a printer which can print more than one page without
having to push the button again. Oh, and you can only use such printers that
were built and registered before 1986. All other such printers are
restricted to government and LEO use only.
What the fuck are you blathering about, Scout?
Terron Musgrave
2017-05-28 20:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Hmm... Let's not forget all the background checks, fingerprinting, fees,
taxes and such to own a printer which can print more than one page without
having to push the button again. Oh, and you can only use such printers that
were built and registered before 1986. All other such printers are
restricted to government and LEO use only.
What the fuck are you blathering about, Scout?
Eat

Shit

And

Die

You

Gun

Grabbing

Scumbag

Traitor!
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-05-29 12:32:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:44:21 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Hmm... Let's not forget all the background checks, fingerprinting, fees,
taxes and such to own a printer which can print more than one page without
having to push the button again. Oh, and you can only use such printers that
were built and registered before 1986. All other such printers are
restricted to government and LEO use only.
What the fuck are you blathering about, Scout?
So are you PRETENDING to be stupid, or you really don't understand
what he's talking about?
tyre biter
2017-05-28 16:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
A..."well regulated MILITIA"...you ignorant gun-grabbing cawk-gargler!


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

Now FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU GODDAMNED AGING HIPPY BURNOUT!
Just Wondering
2017-05-28 18:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
"Well regulated" in this context has nothing to do with regulating guns.
The phrase is "well regulated militia", and means a militia that is in
proper working order. In modern language, the Second Amendment would
say, "To ensure a properly functioning militia which is necessary to the
security of a free nation, government shall not infringe on the right of
the people to keep and bear arms."
Del Gue
2017-05-28 19:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 18:11:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Maybe they should considering suing the city for an Unconstitutional tax?
You have, no doubt, read the comparison of the government regulations
(state and federal) we have on teddy bears with the safety regulations
on guns?
There is no constitutional issue with regulating guns; in fact, the
first two words of the second amendment are "well regulated".
"Well regulated" in this context has nothing to do with regulating guns.
The phrase is "well regulated militia", and means a militia that is in
proper working order. In modern language, the Second Amendment would
say, "To ensure a properly functioning militia which is necessary to the
security of a free nation, government shall not infringe on the right of
the people to keep and bear arms."
Elegantly stated, sir.
!Jones
2017-05-27 23:47:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
Oh, about the same thing that has happened in other cities that don't
have a gun tax... Dallas, for example.

Jones
tyre biter
2017-05-27 23:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
Oh, about the same thing that has happened in other cities that don't
have a gun tax... Dallas, for example.
Jones
Shut your gun-hating cakehole, you fucked up, burned out, hippy turd.
Wayne
2017-05-28 02:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
Oh, about the same thing that has happened in other cities that don't
have a gun tax... Dallas, for example.
Jones
LOL...you don't know squat about Dallas.
!Jones
2017-05-28 12:09:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:50:57 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
LOL...you don't know squat about Dallas.
Besides growing up and living there, you mean?

One thing you will notice if you have statistical interests is that
you will usually have multiple data sets for any given metro area and
that these will typically have a 20% to 25% variance. Thus, the first
hurdle is to compare apples to apples... or, if you write to TPG, find
a data set that shows whatever it is you're trying to prove.

But... crime goes down and then crime goes back up as surely as the
tidal ebb and flow. For the past fifteen years or so, there has been
a global decrease in violent crime... and the gunners all thumped
their chests and said: "See what a great job we're doing?" Now, the
tide has turned. ("Those poor people in Seattle don't have enough
guns!")

Actually, Seattle isn't seeing any particular crime wave. They had 18
homicides in 2016, which is about par for the course. Dallas, with
roughly twice Seattle's population, had 174 homicides in 2016. For
Big 'D', the numbers are significantly elevated; however, we are as
well armed as any other city in the world besides Mogadeshu... we
can't blame it on a "gun tax", anyway.

Time.com has a decent analysis and graphics:
http://time.com/4651122/homicides-increase-cities-2016/
Their point is that you can't focus on any single metro area. For
example: Orlando, FL saw their homicides increase by 125% in 2016
because of a single act by a single armed citizen. One must back off
the details and look at the big picture.

And the big picture is: ... the US crime rates are going up.

Jones
tyre biter
2017-05-28 16:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
And the big picture is: ... the US crime rates are going up.
Jones
All the more reason to be WELL_ARMED!!

You gun grabbing fucked up old hippy burnout.
Wayne
2017-05-28 17:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:50:57 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
LOL...you don't know squat about Dallas.
Besides growing up and living there, you mean?
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
Del Gue
2017-05-28 17:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 19:50:57 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
LOL...you don't know squat about Dallas.
Besides growing up and living there, you mean?
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
Me neither.
Post by Wayne
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
La La Land?
!Jones
2017-05-28 18:04:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:12:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
I'm really not "anti-gun" in any way. I accept that we have a
regulated right to vote in this country... given that one meets the
criteria. A total of 28 (mostly red) states had laws requiring voters
to show some form of identification at the polls in 2017 and the
democrats screamed that it was a violation of people's rights;
however, I do not see how that is.

Similarly, eight (mostly blue) states require that people show valid
identification and pass a background check before buying a gun... and
the republicans scream about *that*!

Let's pass federal laws that make state-issued ID cards free and
require that one must have one of the accepted forms of ID to vote
and, along with a NICS check, to buy a gun... period.

The NRA will have apoplexy over it because they represent the gun
industry. If we implement NICS for all transfers, we shut down the
secondary market. Why would anyone pay a 15% markup if they had to
pass a NICS check anyway?

Jones
max headroom
2017-05-28 18:16:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:12:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
I'm really not "anti-gun" in any way. I accept that we have a
regulated right to vote in this country... given that one meets the
criteria. A total of 28 (mostly red) states had laws requiring voters
to show some form of identification at the polls in 2017 and the
democrats screamed that it was a violation of people's rights;
however, I do not see how that is.
Similarly, eight (mostly blue) states require that people show valid
identification and pass a background check before buying a gun... and
the republicans scream about *that*!
Let's pass federal laws that make state-issued ID cards free and
require that one must have one of the accepted forms of ID to vote
and, along with a NICS check, to buy a gun... period.
You'd need to open NICS to the public, in that case, and triple the staffing.
Post by !Jones
The NRA will have apoplexy over it because they represent the gun
industry. If we implement NICS for all transfers, we shut down the
secondary market. Why would anyone pay a 15% markup if they had to
pass a NICS check anyway?
Who pays 15% over retail anyway? Idiots or crooks?
mr. natural
2017-05-28 19:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:12:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
I'm really not "anti-gun" in any way.
BULLSHIT LIE!
Post by !Jones
I accept that we have a
regulated right to vote in this country... given that one meets the
criteria.
WTF does THAT have to do with your endless anti-gun screeds, shitbag?
Post by !Jones
A total of 28 (mostly red) states had laws requiring voters
to show some form of identification at the polls in 2017 and the
democrats screamed that it was a violation of people's rights;
however, I do not see how that is.
Why are you CHANGING THE SUBJECT from your anti-gun screeds?

Uncomfortable to be held to your actions, burnout?
Post by !Jones
Similarly, eight (mostly blue) states require that people show valid
identification and pass a background check before buying a gun... and
the republicans scream about *that*!
FUCK YOU FASCIST!
Post by !Jones
Let's pass federal laws that make state-issued ID cards free and
require that one must have one of the accepted forms of ID to vote
and, along with a NICS check, to buy a gun... period.
NOTHING is "free" you taxatious gun grabbing traitor!
Post by !Jones
The NRA will have apoplexy over it because they represent the gun
industry. If we implement NICS for all transfers, we shut down the
secondary market.
No, you really do NOT!

Guess how many guns are in private ownership and may be resold face to face.
Post by !Jones
Why would anyone pay a 15% markup if they had to
pass a NICS check anyway?
Jones
Non sequitur, you fascist fuckwit!
Wayne
2017-05-28 21:42:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:12:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
I'm really not "anti-gun" in any way. I accept that we have a
regulated right to vote in this country... given that one meets the
criteria. A total of 28 (mostly red) states had laws requiring voters
to show some form of identification at the polls in 2017 and the
democrats screamed that it was a violation of people's rights;
however, I do not see how that is.
Similarly, eight (mostly blue) states require that people show valid
identification and pass a background check before buying a gun... and
the republicans scream about *that*!
There's good reason to scream. Do you really want people in Alaska,
Utah, Wyoming and such to have to jump through those hoops. And states
such as CA and NY who believe for whatever reason that a background
check is needed have already instituted that requirement at the state level.
Post by !Jones
Let's pass federal laws that make state-issued ID cards free and
require that one must have one of the accepted forms of ID to vote
and, along with a NICS check, to buy a gun... period.
The NRA will have apoplexy over it because they represent the gun
industry.
The NRA represents its members. It is not some faceless entity for the
gun industry.
Just Wondering
2017-05-28 22:41:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:12:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
Well, I never would have guessed that from your anti-gun postings.
And yes, I lived there for about 20 years before getting sucked into the
Golden Magnet.
I'm really not "anti-gun" in any way. I accept that we have a
regulated right to vote in this country... given that one meets the
criteria. A total of 28 (mostly red) states had laws requiring voters
to show some form of identification at the polls in 2017 and the
democrats screamed that it was a violation of people's rights;
however, I do not see how that is.
Similarly, eight (mostly blue) states require that people show valid
identification and pass a background check before buying a gun... and
the republicans scream about *that*!
There's good reason to scream. Do you really want people in Alaska,
Utah, Wyoming and such to have to jump through those hoops. And states
such as CA and NY who believe for whatever reason that a background
check is needed have already instituted that requirement at the state level.
Post by !Jones
Let's pass federal laws that make state-issued ID cards free and
require that one must have one of the accepted forms of ID to vote
and, along with a NICS check, to buy a gun... period.
The NRA will have apoplexy over it because they represent the gun
industry.
The NRA represents its members. It is not some faceless entity for the
gun industry.
Yep.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA,
represents the gun industry.
!Jones
2017-05-28 23:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:41:28 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Yep.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA,
represents the gun industry.
Sorry, you're wrong. The NRA used to be an orginization of sporting
people; however, those days are long gone.

Jones
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-28 23:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:41:28 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Yep.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA,
represents the gun industry.
Sorry, you're wrong.
No, you gun-grabbing fascist turd, he's RIGHT!
Post by !Jones
The NRA used to be an orginization of sporting
people; however, those days are long gone.
Jones
BULLSHIT LIE!

Every damned time you start up in these groups with your LIES you will
be smacked the fuck down!

Got it?

Good!

http://hservices.nra.org/

When it comes to hunting and skills training, America's 13.7 million
hunters have known for years where to go: the NRA. Working in
cooperation with the state of New York in 1949, we developed hunter
safety training as it's known today. Since then, as our proven hunting
education principles have been adopted by one state and province after
another, we've expanded our services and assistance to hunters.

Advanced training for young hunters. The latest research and tactics for
hunting success. Public works that benefit hunters. With all this and
more, it's easy to see why NRA is the number-one hunters' organization
in America. For more information, call us at (800) 492-4868 or email
***@nrahq.org.

http://nrasports.nra.org/
Established in 2013, the NRA Sports Department was developed for NRA
members who have a genuine interest in the recreational shooting sports.
The programs offered appeal to a wide variety of clubs, ranges, hunters,
novice and shootings sports enthusiasts. Take ownership of your NRA by
taking part in these exciting programs.

For more information, visit the program websites below, call us at (800)
672-7435 or email ***@nrahq.org.
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 01:40:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:41:28 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Yep.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA,
represents the gun industry.
Sorry, you're wrong. The NRA used to be an orginization of sporting
people; however, those days are long gone.
Nice strawman non sequiter. I didn't say the NRA is an
organization of sporting people. But your statement has
nothing to do with the fact that The National Shooting
Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA, represents the
gun industry. Go ahead, look it up.
!Jones
2017-05-29 02:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 19:40:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Nice strawman non sequiter. I didn't say the NRA is an
organization of sporting people. But your statement has
nothing to do with the fact that The National Shooting
Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA, represents the
gun industry. Go ahead, look it up.
I could go into it; however, you probably wouldn't be interested. The
NRA proper has a pretty small budget; most of it is hidden in
spin-offs such as the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) which
does free political research and polling for candidates the NRA likes
and has a huge budget funded entirely by the gun industry; however,
they contribute no *money* to candidates.

But, then... what's the point? The NRA remains the umbrella, but it
makes no difference until we, the people, start treating an NRA
endorsement of a candidate in the same way we would one by the KKK.

Jones
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 03:42:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 19:40:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Nice strawman non sequiter. I didn't say the NRA is an
organization of sporting people. But your statement has
nothing to do with the fact that The National Shooting
Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA, represents the
gun industry. Go ahead, look it up.
I could go into it; however, you probably wouldn't be interested. The
NRA proper has a pretty small budget; most of it is hidden in
spin-offs such as the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) which
does free political research and polling for candidates the NRA likes
and has a huge budget funded entirely by the gun industry; however,
they contribute no *money* to candidates.
But, then... what's the point? The NRA remains the umbrella, but it
makes no difference until we, the people, start treating an NRA
endorsement of a candidate in the same way we would one by the KKK.
Why should the people treat a champion of their fundamental rights as a
pariah rather than a hero?
max headroom
2017-05-29 05:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
But, then... what's the point? The NRA remains the umbrella, but it
makes no difference until we, the people, start treating an NRA
endorsement of a candidate in the same way we would one by the KKK.
Ain't gonna happen.
Scout
2017-05-29 06:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
But, then... what's the point? The NRA remains the umbrella, but it
makes no difference until we, the people, start treating an NRA
endorsement of a candidate in the same way we would one by the KKK.
Ain't gonna happen.
Oh, don't worry, I have no doubts that Jones views the NRA in the same light
he does the KKK.

After all, how dare the NRA stand up for the Constitutional rights of our
citizens.
mr. natural
2017-05-29 14:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
But, then... what's the point? The NRA remains the umbrella, but it
makes no difference until we, the people, start treating an NRA
endorsement of a candidate in the same way we would one by the KKK.
Ain't gonna happen.
Oh, don't worry, I have no doubts that Jones views the NRA in the same
light he does the KKK.
After all, how dare the NRA stand up for the Constitutional rights of
our citizens.
Jonesy is a scumsucking, cawk-garglking TRAITOR to our nation, period.
mr. natural
2017-05-29 14:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
it
makes no difference until we, the people, start treating an NRA
endorsement of a candidate in the same way we would one by the KKK.
Jones
Oh lookie, it's a gun-grabber AND a racist!

Die real soon, you Nam burnout hippy trash.
Del Gue
2017-05-29 04:08:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:41:28 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Yep.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA,
represents the gun industry.
Sorry, you're wrong. The NRA used to be an orginization of sporting
people; however, those days are long gone.
Nice strawman non sequiter. I didn't say the NRA is an
organization of sporting people. But your statement has
nothing to do with the fact that The National Shooting
Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA, represents the
gun industry. Go ahead, look it up.
He's going to submarine again, like he always does.
Wayne
2017-05-29 16:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 16:41:28 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Yep.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), not the NRA,
represents the gun industry.
Sorry, you're wrong. The NRA used to be an orginization of sporting
people; however, those days are long gone.
You're perpetuating the fake news myth that anti-gunners are trying to sell.

Such proggies try to sell the NRA as a huge impersonal industry of money
grabbing gigantic gun manufacturers.

The fact is, the NRA represents somewhere in the range around 4.5
million individual members. The NRA also represents like minded
individuals who haven't become members. Without individuals, the NRA
wouldn't exist.
!Jones
2017-05-28 23:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:42:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
There's good reason to scream. Do you really want people in Alaska,
Utah, Wyoming and such to have to jump through those hoops. And states
such as CA and NY who believe for whatever reason that a background
check is needed have already instituted that requirement at the state level.
The NRA represents its members. It is not some faceless entity for the
gun industry.
I *absolutely* believe every person in the United States who takes
lawful possession of a gun should be required to pass a background
check... period.

Do you really want immigrants coming into Texas to have to go through
customs such as AZ and CA... who believe that, for whatever reason,
immigration laws are needed?

We should secure our borders *and* we must control guns nationally.
I'll vote for border security if you'll vote for gun security... just
background checks; I mean on *all* immigrants and all prospective gun
purchasers.

I'm dubious that the border wall will work. Universal background
checks *will* work... I'm willing to try the wall if we can get UBC in
return.

Jones
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-28 23:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I*absolutely* believe every person in the United States who takes
lawful possession of a gun should be required to pass a background
check... period.
You are a gun-grabbing deep state fascist shill - FUCK YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-28 23:54:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I*absolutely* believe
Fuck you.

Fuck what you believe.

Drop dead.
max headroom
2017-05-29 00:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:42:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
There's good reason to scream. Do you really want people in Alaska,
Utah, Wyoming and such to have to jump through those hoops. And states
such as CA and NY who believe for whatever reason that a background
check is needed have already instituted that requirement at the state level.
The NRA represents its members. It is not some faceless entity for the
gun industry.
I *absolutely* believe every person in the United States who takes
lawful possession of a gun should be required to pass a background
check... period.
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
Scout
2017-05-29 00:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 14:42:02 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Wayne
Post by Wayne
There's good reason to scream. Do you really want people in Alaska,
Utah, Wyoming and such to have to jump through those hoops. And states
such as CA and NY who believe for whatever reason that a background
check is needed have already instituted that requirement at the state level.
The NRA represents its members. It is not some faceless entity for the
gun industry.
I *absolutely* believe every person in the United States who takes
lawful possession of a gun should be required to pass a background
check... period.
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
Why should they be required to do so in the first place?
!Jones
2017-05-29 02:55:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 20:56:07 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Why should they be required to do so in the first place?
The idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; I thought that
was our mantra?

Back in the late '80s, it came as a shock to the DEA that one could
manufacture high-quality meth-anphetimine essentially from ephedrine;
it had other components, but ephedrine was the primary requirement. It
was a huge cash cow for our pharmaceutical industry. When strict
regulation was proposed in the early '90s, they threw a fit. Their
lobby, though, worked out a deal: the government would regulate
ephedrine; however, pseudoephedrine would remain un-regulated.

Well, to a meth-lab, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are identical.
Thus, for several years, we had people cooking speed... why should we
regulate pseudoephedrine?

Jones
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 03:44:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 28 May 2017 20:56:07 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"
Post by Scout
Why should they be required to do so in the first place?
The idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; I thought that
was our mantra?
Back in the late '80s, it came as a shock to the DEA that one could
manufacture high-quality meth-anphetimine essentially from ephedrine;
it had other components, but ephedrine was the primary requirement. It
was a huge cash cow for our pharmaceutical industry. When strict
regulation was proposed in the early '90s, they threw a fit. Their
lobby, though, worked out a deal: the government would regulate
ephedrine; however, pseudoephedrine would remain un-regulated.
Well, to a meth-lab, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are identical.
Thus, for several years, we had people cooking speed... why should we
regulate pseudoephedrine?
So we should have more gun control laws to stop all those horrible
people who are out there changing guns into different types of guns?
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 14:51:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
The idea is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; I thought that
was our mantra?
YOU have NOTHING to say about our gun rights.

YOU are a fucking traitor to our Constitution and an enemy of the 2nd
amendment.

DIE REAL SOON!
max headroom
2017-05-29 03:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
I *absolutely* believe every person in the United States who takes
lawful possession of a gun should be required to pass a background
check... period.
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
Why should they be required to do so in the first place?
I think they shouldn't be, but first-time buyers should be screened to weed out prohibited persons.
I like RD's idea of a "prohibited" marking on driver's licenses or ID cards.
Scout
2017-05-29 06:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by Scout
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
I *absolutely* believe every person in the United States who takes
lawful possession of a gun should be required to pass a background
check... period.
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
Why should they be required to do so in the first place?
I think they shouldn't be, but first-time buyers should be screened to
weed out prohibited persons.
I like RD's idea of a "prohibited" marking on driver's licenses or ID cards.
Why should any weeding be needed? Seems to me that at the time a person
becomes legally prohibited from owning guns they are in the control of the
government. Can they simply tattoo them, put an RFI chip in, or marking
their ID.

If the government wants to make a prohibited class of people...then IMO it's
the job of the government to keep track of who those people are and provide
a means for others to identify them if needed.

After all, it's not like the government doesn't know every one of these
individuals and had the chance to mark them in some manner so they could be
identified at will.

Certainly cheaper and more effective than conducting checks that come back
99.9% of the time as innocent of wrong doing. Waste of resources, money and
man power.
!Jones
2017-05-29 02:46:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 17:14:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
It would make scant sense to me. I suppose you may buy as many as you
want... and can pay for, of course. Nobody really cares how many guns
you have. If you have passed one NICS, why would six be any better?

Jones
max headroom
2017-05-29 04:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 17:14:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
It would make scant sense to me. I suppose you may buy as many as you
want... and can pay for, of course. Nobody really cares how many guns
you have. If you have passed one NICS, why would six be any better?
Yet that's the federal law today.
Bill Shatzer
2017-05-29 16:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 28 May 2017 17:14:27 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Should any gun owner be required to pass a NICS to buy -additional- guns?
It would make scant sense to me. I suppose you may buy as many as you
want... and can pay for, of course. Nobody really cares how many guns
you have. If you have passed one NICS, why would six be any better?
Yet that's the federal law today.
Why not? A lot can happen between the first gun purchase and a later
attempt to purchase one which adversely affects one's eligibility to
purchase a firearm.

The fact that a purchaser might be "clean" in January doesn't mean he's
still "clean" in March.

Maybe he's trying to purchase the second firearm because the first gun
was seized or impounded.

peace and justice,
!Jones
2017-05-29 16:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 29 May 2017 09:27:45 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Why not? A lot can happen between the first gun purchase and a later
attempt to purchase one which adversely affects one's eligibility to
purchase a firearm.
The fact that a purchaser might be "clean" in January doesn't mean he's
still "clean" in March.
Maybe he's trying to purchase the second firearm because the first gun
was seized or impounded.
peace and justice,
I assumed that the O.P. meant "in the same purchase". Of course, if
it were two (or more) different transactions, then there would be a
unique NICS for each one.

But, then, if your record is as clean as my conscience, what
difference does it make? It takes, what? 30 seconds or so today?

I mean, you might buy a gun, run out and rob a bank, then try to buy
another... it could happen, I suppose.

Jones
Bill Shatzer
2017-05-29 17:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 29 May 2017 09:27:45 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
Why not? A lot can happen between the first gun purchase and a later
attempt to purchase one which adversely affects one's eligibility to
purchase a firearm.
The fact that a purchaser might be "clean" in January doesn't mean he's
still "clean" in March.
Maybe he's trying to purchase the second firearm because the first gun
was seized or impounded.
peace and justice,
I assumed that the O.P. meant "in the same purchase". Of course, if
it were two (or more) different transactions, then there would be a
unique NICS for each one.
But, then, if your record is as clean as my conscience, what
difference does it make? It takes, what? 30 seconds or so today?
I mean, you might buy a gun, run out and rob a bank, then try to buy
another... it could happen, I suppose.
More likely scenario is a gun owner commits an act of domestic violence
and surrenders his weapon pursuant to a court order.

But, if you're purchasing six guns at one time, a only a single
background check is required.

peace and justice,
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 18:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Shatzer
peace and justice,
I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...

Happy Memorial Day, you scumbag TRAITOR!
!Jones
2017-05-29 20:42:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 29 May 2017 10:26:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Bill Shatzer
Post by Bill Shatzer
But, if you're purchasing six guns at one time, a only a single
background check is required.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

If you clear the NICS, buy all the guns you can carry, I suppose. If
you come back tomorrow for more... hey, it's a 30-second thing.

**********************

The only difference is *selling* them! Under today's lax and
inconsistent laws, you can see a 15 or 20% appreciation by putting
them onto the black market. Under UBC, *your* buyer[s] would also
have to clear a NICS.

It doesn't impede buying guns; it blocks you from selling them into
Mexico, that's all.

You know, responsibility sucks, don't it?

Jones
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 21:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
You know, responsibility sucks, don't it?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE!
mr. natural
2017-05-29 21:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
You know, responsibility sucks,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE!
mr. natural
2017-05-29 21:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE!
max headroom
2017-05-29 21:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
It doesn't impede buying guns; it blocks you from selling them into
Mexico, that's all.
You know, responsibility sucks, don't it?
You do realize that seattle.politics, or.politics, and talk.politics.guns are read -outside- Texas,
right?
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 22:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
It doesn't impede buying guns; it blocks you from selling them into
Mexico, that's all.
You know, responsibility sucks, don't it?
You do realize that seattle.politics, or.politics, and talk.politics.guns are read -outside- Texas,
right?
Jonesy is literally BEGGING to have his ass kicked.
!Jones
2017-05-29 22:26:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Mon, 29 May 2017 14:53:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You do realize that seattle.politics, or.politics, and talk.politics.guns are read -outside- Texas,
right?
What? You mean that there's someplace that *isn't* Texas?

Why would anyone want to live *there*?

Jones
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 22:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Why would anyone want to live*there*?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE!
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 18:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
I assumed that the O.P. meant "in the same purchase".
STFU NOW ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!!



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE!
mr. natural
2017-05-29 18:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
It takes, what? 30 seconds or so today?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.

EAT

SHIT

AND

DIE!
Bill Shatzer
2017-05-29 18:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tyre biter
Post by !Jones
It takes, what? 30 seconds or so today?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.
EAT
SHIT
AND
DIE!
My, what a deep and thoughtful post. NOT

You might wish to seek professional help.

peace and justice,
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 18:39:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tyre biter
Post by !Jones
It takes, what? 30 seconds or so today?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
No one here gives a flying rat's ass what YOU think, you Goddamned
fascist gun-grabbing hippy burnout.
EAT
SHIT
AND
DIE!
My, what a deep and thoughtful post. NOT

You might wish to seek professional help.

peace and justice,

I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...

Happy Memorial Day, you scumbag TRAITOR!
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-31 14:17:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Shatzer
You might wish to seek professional help.
I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...


Oh and let's add in your death threat against the President:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anyone else notice the similarities between Trump's attacks on the
"lying media" and "fake news" and the Nazi smear campaign against the
"Lugenpresse"?

You can, as they say, look it up.

This man must be stopped - peacefully if possible, otherwise if necessary.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


You'd best have some slick lawyering talk for secret Service when they
pay you a visit, Shitzie!

Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 17:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
A lot can happen between the first gun purchase and a later attempt
Fuck off TRAITOR!




I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 18:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Shatzer
Why not? A lot can happen
I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.

It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.

Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...

Happy Memorial Day, you scumbag TRAITOR!
tyre biter
2017-05-29 14:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
Nobody really cares how many guns
you have.
Fuck off and drink a bottle of Drano, you gun-grabbing fascist old
ponytail burnout hippy trash.
Just Wondering
2017-05-29 01:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Universal background checks *will* work...

Law abiding citizens don't need background checks. UBC
won't work, CAN'T work, without the cooperation of criminals.
Please tell us how much criminals care about complying
with gun control laws in general and UBC laws in particular.
Wait, I'll tell you. Criminals, being criminals and all,
don't give a shit about those laws. And that is why universal
background checks are a gun control nut's pipe dream.
!Jones
2017-05-29 02:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-idiots: yes

On Sun, 28 May 2017 19:46:57 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Law abiding citizens don't need background checks.
Sure. And honest voters don't need to show ID.

Jones
Poor dumb Curt
2017-05-29 14:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Just Wondering
Law abiding citizens don't need background checks.
Sure.
Correct.

Now fuck off and DIE, you gutless old hippy TRASH!
Just Wondering
2017-05-28 22:39:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !Jones
The NRA will have apoplexy over it because they represent the gun
industry.
Just because the NRA has (of course) a pro-gun position that benefits
the gun industry does not mean it represents the industry. The NRA
represents its members. The National Shooting Sports Foundation
represents the gun industry.
Del Gue
2017-05-28 16:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wayne
Post by !Jones
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 27 May 2017 09:05:06 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple
Post by a425couple
What has happened under Seattle’s gun tax
Oh, about the same thing that has happened in other cities that don't
have a gun tax... Dallas, for example.
Jones
LOL...you don't know squat about Dallas.
I can promise you he don't.
Loading...