Universal Background Checks....

[ScottRiqui]

It sure would be nice if every person of voting age had to pass a basic civics class in order to vote

Be careful what you wish for (having to pass a government-mandated 'test' in order to exercise a basic Constitutional right). Remember that at any given moment, it's not just the 2nd Amendment ox that's in danger of being gored.

[Sarge]

For a long time, MO had a law that required individuals to obtain a 'permit to purchase' (from the high sheriff) any handgun, regardless of whether it was being purchased from a dealer or individual.

It was soundly ignored by folks who knew each other, knew the other guy wasn't a nut/robber/doper, etc. The law existed for decades and I saw exactly two people prosecuted for violating it. Both were suspects in homicides.

[sigcurious]

but the point, which you missed , of my post was not about the good or bad of each things I noted but the general understanding of those laws as being "universal" in the US

The correct understanding of what you pointed out is that the states have the authority to regulate everything you noted not that they are "universal". Speed limits? set by states, drinking age...set by states(albeit strong armed by the Fed), smoking age...set by states. See the pattern there?

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting. In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.

[RockSmoot]

I wasn't referring to the legal side, just a common sense view.

Actually, so was I. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights is full of common sense.

Look, if you really want to effectively reduce violent crime, we could just monkey around with the rules of evidence and just go ahead and convict bad guys for crimes, even if the police obtained evidence illegally, if everyone "just knows" the guy is guilty. I mean, if you're going to trample constitutional rights, at least pick ones that will actually produce results.

[Dragline45]

And what if they did not dispose of your transaction info, and next year Massachusetts passes a capacity ban with no grandfathering, and uses the info they were not supposed to keep in an attempt to confiscate some of your guns or magazines, Dragline45?

Will you care then?

Honestly I could care less if someone has records of transactions for my firearm purchases. They were bought legally, and I don't intend on using them illegally. As for the proposed capacity ban, if it passes I am moving north. And even if the ban passes, what makes you so sure there is going to be a mass confiscation of weapons throughout the state? The day the Government starts taking peoples guns is the day they spark the starts of a revolution in this country.

Honestly, I am sick of idiots who say, "Well, I have nothing to hide... maybe you do."

FYI, I am a retired Navy officer. I held a TS/SCI, and in my current civilian gig I still hold a TS. I have had firearms training from instructors ranging from Drill Instructors to 18B to Combat Controllers on the military side, and from Mas Ayoob on my own time. I get periodic SSBI investigations.

I do not have anything to hide. (BTW, unlike some of you - Dragline, manta, Alabama, Apom, etc - I use my name as a screen name here. M Leake. Who is hiding things, again?)

Never remember accusing you of having something to hide, nor does choosing a non de plume for a gun forum imply I have anything to hide. I was simply stating I have to jump through the hoops and it's not the end of the world. Sure it would be nice if I didn't have to go through the hassle of passing a background check or having to register my guns, but at the end of the day I could really care less and I have far more important things to worry about. Bottom line is if I want to own a gun in this state, I need to pass the background check and register my guns. Until I am in the position to up and move, I really have no other choice.

And just as simply as you can call me an idiot for my statement, I can make the generalization based on your comment and call you a paranoid conspiracy theorist. I didn't choose to be born in this state, and currently, not only is it not in my best interest to move out of the state (gun issues aside), but I am in no position to just up and move because I don't like the gun laws here.

[MLeake]

Dragline45, Apom is the one who directly accused others of being closet criminals, but he uses comments such as yours to buttress those claims.

It is not about having something to hide.

It is about intrusions by government into the rights of the individual, and it is about potential future confiscation.

Seriously, take a look at the bill passed in NY last week, then look at Deval Patrick's proposals in your state, and tell me again that this should not be a concern.

[Alabama Shooter]

I also do not assume all those in favor of background checks are antis. I do assume they have not considered the serious potential for myriad abuses.

It is what you assumed about me. You can spin it however you want now but it does not change anything.

I ask, but note that in some things, I do not care what the "vast majority of Americans support." That's the beauty of Rights. They're not subject to mob rule.

Then why ask if you don't care? But since I asserted and you did ask how many sources did you want me to cite? I imagine I could throw out there about a dozen if I had the energy. Here is a current one:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...d-gun-control/

Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales

Favor 91%

91% seems overwhelming to me.

It is akin (meaning related, but not identical) to a prior restraint in that it requires me and other law abiding citizens to gain governmental permission before we're allowed to exercise a fundamental, individual right. I will never regain the time I lose going through the hassle, and I will never be refunded whatever fee I must pay for the privilege.

If that is your argument than you have completely misunderstood prior restraint. It is not about going through a hassle to get the same result. It is about getting a different result because of the hassle. You are still going to end up with your gun. If the check is free it does not even cost you a dime.

Here I will help: A better analogy would be if background checks cost $200 and instead of buying a Glock you bought a HiPoint due to the onerous cost. That would be a much less effective means of defense. However I am not arguing for a $200 fee so there is no basis for the comparison; but it would make a better analogy.

No, it's a right because the 2A says so. See "shall not be infringed. If a right is to mean anything, we must have the tools necessary to exercise the right: ink, paper, firearms, etc.

And you still get your firearm and you can still sell it if you want to. The SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable restrictions are acceptable. If you think waiting a couple of minutes or driving to a gun shop to buy a gun is overly onerous you must be one impatient person.

Yes, and we pay for it in taxes. So?

You were indulging your straw man fantasy about runaway background check fees leading to Armageddon of gun rights. It isn't there.

Great! Go use an FFL, then. That doesn't explain your suggestion that everyone be required to use them, though. Will you really feel better about your sales if I have to do a background check?

I would also feel even much better if you did not sell a gun to my meth head neighbor whom you don't know is a meth head. That is very helpful to me.

I have made no such assumption.

Haven't you?

Originally Posted by Spats McGee
And your solution is to go ahead and let the anti-2A folks have the first move?

You just said background checks are giving the antis the first move. You are lumping everyone together.

[MLeake]

Alabama Shooter, I am not spinning anything. I am getting specific.

In your case, I do suspect you of anti tendencies. You keep choosing not to address issues, and redirect arguments to try and make those who defend a Constitutional right justify their defense.

You act like an anti. If you are not one, then I will be surprised.

Had you even addressed past history with Feinstein, Cuomo, et al rather than glossing it over, I might think otherwise.

Spin that.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

Then why ask if you don't care? But since I asserted and you did ask how many sources did you want me to cite? I imagine I could throw out there about a dozen if I had the energy. Here is a current one:

Because I was curious. I've seen several polls lately that claimed that a "majority" of people supported X or Y. I was curious as to which you followed, and where you got your numbers.

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

If that is your argument than you have completely misunderstood prior restraint.

No, I'm pretty sure that after 3 years of law school and 10 years of practice, I understand prior restraint. The hassle factor is introduced to keep one from going through with the sale. The fact that the hassle doesn't bother you, personally, doesn't mean it's not a hassle. You do understand what "akin" means, right?

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

You were indulging your straw man fantasy about runaway background check fees leading to Armageddon of gun rights. It isn't there.

I'm not the one that used the phrase "Armageddon of gun rights" here. You have said that background checks are free. Perhaps they are, counting from dealer to FFL. Transfers are not always free, though. You don't seem to think that raising costs amounts to a restriction. That's just not correct.

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

I would also feel even much better if you did not sell a gun to my meth head neighbor whom you don't know is a meth head. That is very helpful to me.

That's a little odd. So, you'll "feel better" in spite of the fact that there's no evidence to support either: (1) the notion that such a restriction would even slow down your neighbor from getting a gun; or (2) any claim that I have ever sold a firearm to a prohibited person, or will ever do so?

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

You just said background checks are giving the antis the first move. You are lumping everyone together.

That's not quite the same as "assuming that" you are an anti. What I am stating is that you are more than willing to allow the antis to take the first step that they're looking for (universal background checks), in spite of the clear lack of any logical support for such a move.

[Twisted99]

The correct understanding of what you pointed out is that the states have the authority to regulate everything you noted not that they are "universal". Speed limits? set by states, drinking age...set by states(albeit strong armed by the Fed), smoking age...set by states. See the pattern there?

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting.

My point was not weather the federal government CAN make a law for all 50 states, just that if there was SOME continuity among ALL 50 states the average person would not have to waste their time to know if they can (fill in a state firearm law here) across a state line that might be 5 minutes from there house.

I spent more than a year reading here before I purchased my first firearm, so I think I am a little more educated than John Q Public.
The first time my wife and I traveled out of state she was adamant we not have a gun in the car because she thought it was illegal.
Ask your non-gun owning friends, family or co-workers about interstate gun laws, and see what they "know". Then ask about the drinking age, or what a speed limit sign means from state to state, or even buying a car from a different state ( DMV)

One of the reasons people jump on the "gun control" bandwagon is because they are uninformed. One or the reasons they are uniformed is because there is little or no continuity in laws from state to state.

In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.

I was not saying they could. My only thought was I should not need to spend hours to learn another states laws to sell a gun. If they were at least SIMILAR, like the drinking age per se, The chances of unknowingly breaking a STATE law would be a whole lot less.

[win-lose]

I'm as pro 2A as the next guy. My views on the 2A has recently cost me a few friendships. As stated earlier in this thread, I believe in universal back ground checks. I've now read through 6 pages on the subject in this thread and have not been convinced otherwise.

I don't find the incrementalism argument to be persuasive. I also don't think the prior restraint argument holds up against a "reasonable person" standard.

Please understand, I hate to give these Progressive Anti's anything! But I do believe that criminals and severely mentally ill people should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. Arguing otherwise, plays into the Anti's hands as it allows us to be painted into the "gun nut" narrative unfolding before us.

I do not buy/sell without going through an FFL. At a minimum, it establishes clear custody dates so if a gun is used in a crime, either before or after I own it, I can easily demonstrate it "wasn't me". Lastly, I never want to have to explain why I sold a firearm to a person who later did something terrible with it and I definitely don't want to live with the guilt of it.

[MLeake]

So, Twisted99, your argument is that so you will not be confused, we should let the states with the strictest laws set national policy? If not, please clarify.

Similarly, win-lose, you are saying that so you can be comfortable, you not only choose to conduct sales via FFL (with which I have no issue, and which I typically do, myself), but you feel you should support forcing others to do the same? If so, I definitely have issues with that.

Edit: win-lose, if you do not find the incrementalism argument persuasive, please in your own words explain what just happened in New York. You know, that little thing where the earlier, ten-round capacity limit just became a seven-round limit; magazines are only grandfathered for one year; all that.

Also, check out the thread (with links) on Feinstein's AWB bill, and tell me again how you don't find an incrementalism argument compelling. http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=514086

[jimbob86]

Once and for all, it is a poor comparison. We don't have a renewable license good for five years that shows we passed a background check. The closest thing is a security clearance for gov't employees.

Speak for yourself. We have that in Nebraska, and I like it. The NRA tried to trade getting reid of it for an institution of a de facto AWB, but grass roots efforsts killed it in the nick of time.

For a long time, MO had a law that required individuals to obtain a 'permit to purchase' (from the high sheriff) any handgun, regardless of whether it was being purchased from a dealer or individual.

It was soundly ignored by folks who knew each other, knew the other guy wasn't a nut/robber/doper, etc. The law existed for decades and I saw exactly two people prosecuted for violating it. Both were suspects in homicides.

Ours is similar..... though it was not required for private sales, most still ask to see one, and a picture ID ... I do.

It's shall issue and provides everyone buying a handgun with an "I'm not a felon card." Our CHP works, as well.

I'm okay with universal checks, I live in Illinois and the FOID card doesn't suck that bad.

So you admit that it sucks (just not that bad!) and are advocating that the rest us should embrace the the suck that you do?

"Do it to Julia!"

A big part of the problem in this thread is a very mistaken assumption from some that everyone who wants background checks is an anti. -Alabama Shooter

Are you familiar with Lawdog's Cake Anology?

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

What you are doing, in effect, is standing there while the Anti's have 3/4 of our cake, wailing for more, and telling me, "Just give them a slice..... you still have some cake."

NOT ONLY NO, BUT HELL NO!

Not only no, but I want some of that cake they have defrauded me out of, under the bad faith "compromises" of the past.

I don't know if youare a "mole", AS, but you are certainly not helping our side to keep our cake!

If you are one of those who think we should give some to keep some ...... that is the road no cake at all.

You want my cake? Molon Labe.

[jimbob86]

Please understand, I hate to give these Progressive Anti's anything! But I do believe that criminals and severely mentally ill people should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. Arguing otherwise, plays into the Anti's hands as it allows us to be painted into the "gun nut" narrative unfolding before us.

If just half of the 80+ million gun owners in this country stood their ground and said NO! like they meant it, and voted likewise, there would be no mention of gun control. Instead we have 70+ milillion of them worrying about being called "gun nuts" and doling out my cake a slice at a time, so as to appear "reasonable".


Enough!

[sigcurious]

My only thought was I should not need to spend hours to learn another states laws to sell a gun. If they were at least SIMILAR, like the drinking age per se, The chances of unknowingly breaking a STATE law would be a whole lot less.

This statement indicates a lack of understanding of interstate firearms transfers. Your first sentence implies that your concern is with interstate firearms transfers, ie you a resident of one state wish to sell or transfer to a second party of another state. These transactions while affected by various state laws, are also governed by federal law. As a side effect, if you follow federal law, you will find it hard, although not impossible(certain situations of a long gun transfer could go awry of state law), to break state law. Interstate firearms transfers, with few exceptions, must go through a FFL. One law to know that will protect you from accidentally breaking the law a majority of the time. It's really not that complicated.

However, this thread is about universal background checks forced by the federal government, which primarily affects private party transfers in one state, so your concern of "needing to know multiple states laws" is moot. Which brings us back to...

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting. In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.

[HiBC]

The folks quoting poll numbers do not get it.They are ignorant or intentionally practicing fraud and deception.The poll response is manipulated by those who craft the questions.Does that need explanation?

The Constitution defines SOME,but not all,of my INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

I do not give a rats hiney what anyones poll or opinion says otherwise,the 2nd Ammendment says what it says and not you or anyone else has the right to bargain my Constitutionally defined Liberty away.
Its not yours to give away.Its mine,and God,not the government gave it to me.

Democracy(including polls)is a lynch mob.If 92% of the folks asked say you should be lynched,how does that work for you?.You going to shrug and stick your neck out?Compromise?

No.We have a Constitution.It defines your Rights,too.

Once again,the 2nd Ammendment says what it says.

Each and every lawmaker attacking it is violating an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.They SHOULD pay the consequenses.

There IS a path to change the 2nd Ammendment.It takes 2/3 the House,2/3 the Senate and 3/4 the States to ratify.Until then,"Shall not be infringed" is what the law says.

You leave MY Constitutional Rights alone.They are not yours to touch.

Even the proponents of this barn carpet acknowledge it will be ineffective.

"Never let a crisis go to waste" Heard that?All this is cold blooded manipulation of the deaths of those kids and teachers.It is to advance an agenda.The agenda includes,among other things,disarming us.Incrementally.

Some of you people truly disgust me.

[nate45]

I have to get DHS background checks all the time. One has to get a background check to have a CCW.

What are you guys afraid of? Are some of you afraid you won't pass?

[Spats McGee]

nate45, I had to get background checks when I:
took the bar;
got sworn in as a prosecutor;
got my ccw.

I have this feeling that I've had other background checks, but I can't recall when they were. I'm not afraid of the background check. I don't think it's the government's business to run my background every time I buy a firearm, though. I think it's a hurdle that some folks (not necessarily folks on this board) want to put up for the sole purpose of deterring gun ownership. I think universal background checks will be ineffective at deterring crime without full registration.

[Sarge]

HiBC saved me a bunch of typing in post 141. I second everything he said. I was and remain against background checks of any kind.

First, they rang the death knell of a legal principle known as 'presumption of innocence'. You should not have to preemptively and repeatedly confirm your innocence to exercise a constitutional right.

Second, they are a nuisance only to the law abiding and they are a tool of infringement the second amendment prohibits.

Third, they are completely ineffective. Hardcore criminals, terrorists and (other) crazies and not going to stand around, waiting to buy a gun, while somebody runs a background check on them. They will get guns and they won't give a rat's ass if it's suddenly MORE illegal for them to obtain them.

Did you miss that? Hardcore criminals and crazies don't give a damn about ANY of your glorious laws. They laugh at them and they laugh at you for being stupid enough to think such a thing. They rejoice at any legal mechanism that inhibits their victims' ability to defend themselves.

Whose side are you on?

[nate45]

I don't think it's the government's business to run my background every time I buy a firearm, though.

Yep, especially when you trade a working firearm in, you shouldn't have to wait to get the one you traded for. I have just got used to the checks though, its really not that big a deal.

I'm not worried about turning mine in though, my guns or my FOID card. Its not going to happen. If it does I'll become an outlaw again, because I'm keeping my guns, till they take them away by force.

The Sheriff and local state police can verify that it would be a chore getting my firearms by force. Multiply me times a few million and its stupid to even suggest it. So lets forget that when we talk about stricter checks, its not happening.

[Bud Helms]

We don't have a renewable license good for five years that shows we passed a background check. The closest thing is a security clearance for gov't employees.

I was completely unaware of that, jimbo. That's what assuming will get you.

[arch308]

Very well stated HiBC and Sarge!!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!

Background checks are feel good laws. They do nothing to stop criminals from acquiring guns. They do make the sheeple feel safer.

[manta49]

Did you miss that? Hardcore criminals and crazies don't give a damn about ANY of your glorious laws. They laugh at them and they laugh at you for being stupid enough to think such a thing. They rejoice at any legal mechanism that inhibits their victims' ability to defend themselves

Follow that logic and there is no point in having any laws as some will brake them.

[win-lose]

Similarly, win-lose, you are saying that so you can be comfortable, you not only choose to conduct sales via FFL (with which I have no issue, and which I typically do, myself), but you feel you should support forcing others to do the same? If so, I definitely have issues with that.

Edit: win-lose, if you do not find the incrementalism argument persuasive, please in your own words explain what just happened in New York. You know, that little thing where the earlier, ten-round capacity limit just became a seven-round limit; magazines are only grandfathered for one year; all that.

I'm not saying I support background checks so I can feel better. I'm saying I support background checks because criminals/psychos should not be able to acquire firearms from legal sellers. They should be limited to black markets which could then be targeted by law-enforcement. I only mentioned what I do and why I do it as demonstration that I practice what I preach and why I do it. The "feel" argument is exactly the argument being used against us "We have a right to feel safe", to which I say no, you do not have the right to restrict my rights so you can possibly feel a certain way. By this type of logic, the 1st A would be gone to spare feelings.

I understand how incrementalism works and what was done in NY and am sickened by it. However, if today was 12/1/2012, I would still have the same position on background checks. I think that much of the analysis on background checks is not seeing the tree through the forest.

BTW, Morgan, thank you for your service!

[Alabama Shooter]

In your case, I do suspect you of anti tendencies. You keep choosing not to address issues, and redirect arguments to try and make those who defend a Constitutional right justify their defense.

Had you even addressed past history with Feinstein, Cuomo, et al rather than glossing it over, I might think otherwise.

Spin that.

I have answered every question directly and to the point as it pertains to universal background checks. You have not demonstrated anywhere where I have not done so. If you want to drift around and discuss other things there are other threads for that.

I think that you are like most people that when losing a rational argument that challenges your beliefs you then assume that there must be something wrong with the arguer.

You act like an anti. If you are not one, then I will be surprised.

Really? I'd like to hear and explanation of that... Never mind, see below.

The folks quoting poll numbers do not get it.They are ignorant or intentionally practicing fraud and deception.The poll response is manipulated by those who craft the questions.Does that need explanation?

The Constitution defines SOME,but not all,of my INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

So Fox News is crafting an anti-gun fraud on the American people? I can suspend disbelief for only so much. This type of tin hattery is not only absurd but counter productive.

And the more important point which you have missed is that the federal government has limited authority when it comes to making "universal" laws. It is important to understand that, particularly when the proposed "universal" laws apply to a fundamental right to which the federal government is expressly constrained from restricting. In this specific case, please cite the authority with which the federal government can regulate an intrastate transaction between two private persons.

Very sadly the ICC. Would if could go back 200 years and rewrite it or get rid of it.

Speak for yourself. We have that in Nebraska, and I like it. The NRA tried to trade getting rid of it for an institution of a de facto AWB, but grass roots efforts killed it in the nick of time.

I would be very much in favor of a voluntary system. I don't know the particulars in NE but it would have to crafted carefully to avoid abuse.

Are you familiar with Lawdog's Cake Anologyhttp://http://thelawdogfiles.blogspo.../a-repost.html?

Your link goes to advertisements on hiring truckers, prostate cancer treatments and grants for single mothers. While ironic I don't think that is what you were trying to say.

Not only no, but I want some of that cake they have defrauded me out of, under the bad faith "compromises" of the past.

I don't know if you are a "mole", AS, but you are certainly not helping our side to keep our cake!

If you are one of those who think we should give some to keep some ...... that is the road no cake at all.

You want my cake? Molon Labe.

(and others)

Well that is a position I can respect.

Since you have agreed not to negotiate with the 91% of whom likely compose about 75% of all gun owners (or moles as you would have it ) you will have absolutely no room to complain when something really awful happens because of your stand on principles. Because if you really believe that the congress is going to make a stand against an overwhelming majority than you have child-like naivete that displays a huge ignorance of politics and the functioning of the US Government.

I understand prior restraint. The hassle factor is introduced to keep one from going through with the sale. The fact that the hassle doesn't bother you, personally, doesn't mean it's not a hassle.

The hassle will not keep a single non-prohibited person from acquiring the legally allowed firearm of their choice. Based on your arguments people would never publish books or newspapers because of all the red tape they have to go through.

I'm not the one that used the phrase "Armageddon of gun rights" here.

You don't seem to think that raising costs amounts to a restriction. That's just not correct.

Lets revisit what you wrote:

I keep bothering because, in part, it's MY MONEY that you're proposing to spend. The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy. -- John Marshall. The other reason that I keep bothering the argument that "oh, it's only 5 dollars" puts us on a slippery slope. First, it's $5, then we adjust for inflation, then just a little more. Pretty soon, that background check will cost $100, and at some point before that happens, it starts preventing some lower-income folks from being able to exercise their RKBA at all.

Elimination of the rights for the poor sounds a little self indulgent and without basis in fact to me. Since there have historically been no cost increases your assumption that increases would then be used as a control is a poor one at best.

That's a little odd. So, you'll "feel better" in spite of the fact that there's no evidence to support either: (1) the notion that such a restriction would even slow down your neighbor from getting a gun; or (2) any claim that I have ever sold a firearm to a prohibited person, or will ever do so?

1- As I noted earlier it would place a barrier. How effective that barrier would be is a matter for speculation as it does not exist yet. Clearly I am in the camp that thinks it would have a net positive effect.
2- Yes. And I don't think you ever purposely would either. What you intend to do and what you actually do are likely different at times.

That's not quite the same as "assuming that" you are an anti. What I am stating is that you are more than willing to allow the antis to take the first step that they're looking for (universal background checks), in spite of the clear lack of any logical support for such a move.

As I have shown several times in this thread not everyone who wants universal background checks is an anti. Just because group A wants a certain result on issue 4 and Group B wants the same result on issue 4 does not mean that A=B on all issues. When I said "some people" I was not really referring to you but the others who posted them.



The hilarious irony that some people think that I am a anti-mole is way more amusing than any of you can imagine. However since people are now coloring their arguments with personal attacks I have reluctantly lost interest in this topic as such discussions tend to degenerate rapidly. A sad day it is when people who are supposed to be logical and pro freedom jump to erroneous conclusions and can not hold down a reasonable conversation without casting aspersions.

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. - by Rousseau, Jean Jacques.

I stand behind everything I have written in this thread and if you agree or disagree I still respect your opinion on the matter. If you choose not to respect mine than that is an issue for you to deal with.