[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.