kallend 1,623 #176 December 25, 2008 QuoteQuote Sorry, you are not entitled to your own version of history, even at Christmas. Fortunately I'm my own Santa, and he takes care of #1. That's OK then. Have a good one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #177 December 25, 2008 Quote Words have accepted meanings. If you want to use your own definitions instead, don't expect the rest of us to follow along. That is because your only argument is semantics. You will never just answer a simple question for fear of looking silly. You defend your nitpicking, yet insult others when they point out you doing it. Amazing! Dr. Kallend and Mr Hyde is alive."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #178 December 25, 2008 Quote Quote Words have accepted meanings. If you want to use your own definitions instead, don't expect the rest of us to follow along. That is because your only argument is semantics. You will never just answer a simple question for fear of looking silly. You defend your nitpicking, yet insult others when they point out you doing it. Amazing! Dr. Kallend and Mr Hyde is alive. Have a nice Easter, Ron. (Easter is far closer to Dec 25 than the ratification of the Bill of Rights was to the implementation of the ORIGINAL Constitution)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #179 December 25, 2008 Quote#1. There is no "title III" You are confusing "class III DEALERS" who are allowed to sell TITLE II weapons. OK... Technically true, but most of the dealers I know and back when I was one, referred to certain types of weapons as class III... I used common vernacular, rather than use the Queen's English, so I'll let someone else explain that common vernacular is appropriate... QuoteFirst paragraph..."however NFA weapons are sometimes called class 3 weapons, because a class 3 SOT (see below) is needed to deal in NFA weapons." http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html Quote#2. Registration has lead to confiscation. You however seem to be fine with confiscation....That is why you have no problem. You are very mistaken. PM Sent QuoteAnd you ignored that the Hughes Amendment banned a type of weapon from civilians against the 2nd and the SC take in US v Miller. That's where you failed... Please read the whole story regarding US v. Miller. How did it start? Why did it end that way. Finally, please read the opinions of the current SCOTUS on US v. Miller and its possible fututre should it come to light again. It would not pass and many states will now allow one to own an SBS if they are in an "NFA State." QuoteThe gun is not being "re-entered" into anything. Sure it is. If a brand spanky new gun is sold by the Licensee to the Tranferee (Party A) and transferee does a private sale to Party B, who sells P2P to Party C, who sells P2P to Party D and gets diluted until it gets to Party K and Party K goes to a gun show. While at the gun show, Party K starts talking to an FFL Dealer and decides to exchange the weapon and some cash for a new gun. The FFL has to enter the gun back into his/her inventory and when Party K's gun is resold by the FFL; that FFL has to have the new owner fill out a new 4473 and the chain of title for that weapon now starts over. QuoteWhen you call NICS it does not ask for a serial number. Exactly. It just verifies that person has no, X, Y. or Z that prohibits ownership etc. Well, except in the case of Mr. Cho at Virginia Tech... but that's a different thread. QuoteThere is a yellow sheet done, but the dealer keeps that in a file. He sends it nowhere. EXACTLY!!! Whew... my work here is done. QuoteYou keep proving you have no clue how the process actually works. I know very well how the process works. Read my PM. You keep proving that you're only willing to sling NRA rhetoric which only further polarizes the entire issue; rather than bringing a divided house to the table so true solutions can be discussed and consensus achieved. QuoteFrom his own website: Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Exactly!!! Whew, My work here is done. And, if this is going to convert into a "What Obama says," thread... http://obama.3cdn.net/7d467fe75a3029d7df_hum6injwr.pdf So, here's the ORIGINAL point of this thread... http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/gun_show.shtml Now instead of arguing, what are you willing to bring to the table as a solution? I've offered mine. All gun ownership is a constitutional right. With those rights comes responsibility. We give you a National Gun Registry for the transference of all weapons and ownership is maintained. Add a $15.00 tax to all/any type gun to maintain this registry. And, you repeal all stupid ass gun/ammo laws and inordinate taxes. What do you bring to the table, Ron?Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #180 December 26, 2008 QuoteAnd, you repeal all stupid ass gun/ammo laws and inordinate taxes. Seeing as how all the 'compromise' has been on the side of the pro-2nd, get them to pass that FIRST, as a show of good faith. Showing how you're going to prevent the records from being used for any more NYC / Cali / NO - style confiscations would be helpful, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #181 December 26, 2008 This doesn't have to be a "You go first. No you," Scenario It could be a single bipartisan bill introduced at the same time. P.S. I may have punched out the thread regarding the N.O. confiscations before you had a chance to read. The directive was anyone on the streets _who did not have ID of any kind_ and had weapons; those weapons were to be confiscated. If they could not prove who they were, the guns were taken to a repository. They were told the process to reclaim their weapons. Of the thousands of weapons I saw, 458 were taken to the repository. No records were used to kick in doors and target weapons for confiscation. If you were on the street and... When you get home, we'll talk..Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #182 December 26, 2008 BTW... if you haven't put pen to paper to your legislators as of late,,, you may want to. H.R. 96: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 Cause if not now; sooner or later, they're gonna chip away at the peanut bowl, one peanut at a time.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #183 December 26, 2008 I'm not disputing what you were told, but evidently everyone didn't get the same brief - unless Patricia Konie's kitchen is 'on the street'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #184 December 26, 2008 Yeah, I acknowledged in that deleted post that either a) the word didn't get all the way downstream, or b) there were some abuses. In some cases, officers were reprimanded and in her case, last I heard... he no longer policeman. Personally, I blame the leadership for that nonsense also. No different than I blame the senior NCO's for Abu Ghraib.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #185 December 27, 2008 QuoteOK... Technically true, but most of the dealers I know and back when I was one, referred to certain types of weapons as class III... I used common vernacular, rather than use the Queen's English, so I'll let someone else explain that common vernacular is appropriate.. As soon as you admit that the Hughes Amendment banned a type of fire arm that has been used in TWO crimes since 1934. But you seem to think that was fine. QuoteYou are very mistaken. PM Sent I don't care what you "claim". I care that your facts are wrong. Registration HAS lead to confiscation. Germany, England, Australia, and here in NYC in the 90's and New Orleans after Katrina. QuotePlease read the whole story regarding US v. Miller. Considering you STILL do not grasp what the Hughes Amendment did...Do you really want to go there? QuoteHow did it start? Two Federal Treasury Agents named Turner and Anderson were laying in wait to arrest someone for moonshining. It was June 1938. They jumped out of the woods and arrested two men, Miller and I think Lawson, or maybe Layton. They found no moonshine, but they did find a shot gun that was a few inches two short. Miller WON in the district court having his lawyer claim that a 200.00 "tax" on a 10 dollar weapon was a "prohibitive" tax and that a short barrel shotgun WAS a military Arm. Miller Lost in the SC since NO ONE went to DC to fight it. Read the case file. Now, you wanna bring the class up to speed on WHY the 1934 NFA act was put into place? QuoteFinally, please read the opinions of the current SCOTUS on US v. Miller and its possible fututre should it come to light again. It would not pass and many states will now allow one to own an SBS if they are in an "NFA State." Read, yet DC STILL tried to do an end run. And the 1934 NFA is STILL on the books, and the HUGHES AMENDMENT is STILL on the books. The whole "NFA State" is against the Constitution since the 2nd clearly speaks (And the SC in Miller agreed with) to owning weapons that are like the type in military service. The Hughes Amendment is against the 2nd as Chief Justice Roberts said in Heller v DC, "What is reasonable about a ban?" Yet, you still defend both. QuoteExactly. It just verifies that person has no, X, Y. or Z that prohibits ownership etc. Well, except in the case of Mr. Cho at Virginia Tech... but that's a different thread. EXACTLY...IT DOES NOT WORK. Cho got both of his pistols legally AND with a "one gun a mth" law in place. Yet you want MORE regulations that do not work and more paperwork that does not work. QuoteI know very well how the process works. No, clearly you don't. QuoteYou keep proving that you're only willing to sling NRA rhetoric which only further polarizes the entire issue; rather than bringing a divided house to the table so true solutions can be discussed and consensus achieved. Wrong...You don't know me. I am not a member of the NRA. Maybe you should quit slinging Brady and VPC rhetoric? QuoteWhat do you bring to the table, Ron? I gave my suggestions in the first page of this thread. Maybe you should read them again? And you really should read the Hughes Amendment....It is clear you have never read it."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #186 December 27, 2008 QuoteIn a 1997 ATF survey of CRIMINALS, 80 admitted buying weapons at gun shows. And that's just the ones that got convicted. Still waiting for you to man up and give the "out of number"...You know, like 80 out of ?????? 100 or 1 million? But, I am willing to bet you will not, since it will just make your claim silly. And I am still waiting on what limits you would approve on the 1st? The 4th? The 14th, 15th? I guess you want to have background checks to vote then? Of course, I don't expect you to answer that either. You will just tap dance around like normal."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #187 December 27, 2008 Peace. Out. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #188 December 27, 2008 QuoteGod, I am so tired of hearing that empty rhetoric. The Dingo's got my baby, The Dingo's got my baby!! Nobody's going to take away your damn guns. Like I said before...It happened in New Orleans...But you made excuses for that one. How about NY in 1990? QuoteIn New York City, gun-prohibition advocates were able to pass a confiscation bill, and the police used gun owner-registration lists to go door to door to prosecute registered gun owners who had not provided the city with proof that their guns had been surrendered or moved out of the city. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409130630.asp So, the Govt HAS used registration information to confiscate."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #189 December 27, 2008 QuotePlease try to pay attention.... I have NEVER said anything about bans. Not on here, not in the PM. I HAVE said I am for registration, but OPPOSED to bans And I and others have SHOWN where registration has lead to CONFISCATION. Even IN THE US. Who is burring their head in the sand in the face of evidence to the contrary to their position?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #190 December 29, 2008 QuoteSo, the Govt HAS used registration information to confiscate. What's the problem? Isn't that exactly why the 2nd amendmend was put in place....so you can shoot the guy coming for your guns? If you have sufficient firearms and ammunition you have nothing to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #191 December 29, 2008 the government coming for your guns elevates this issue to an entirely different level. just ask the Branch Dividians (sp?). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #192 December 30, 2008 QuoteWhat's the problem? Isn't that exactly why the 2nd amendmend was put in place....so you can shoot the guy coming for your guns? You still using a fire extinguisher to blow out birthday candles?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
