On Sep 19, 2:24 pm, "¦ Reality Check© ¦"  wrote:
> "Gray Ghost"  wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9C8B770D07964Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Cole Firearms Inc."  wrote in
> >news:4AB4EA4F.7050707@sbcglobal.net:
>
> >>http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d9-Fed..> >> judge-rules-police-cannot-detain-people-for-openly-carrying-guns
>
> >> Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns
>
> >> On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the
> >> United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in
> >> a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers.  The
> >> Judge's straight shootin' message to police:  Leave open carriers alone
> >> unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot."
>
> >> The facts of the case are pretty simple.  Matthew St. John entered an
> >> Alamogordo movie theater as a paying customer and sat down to enjoy the
> >> movie.  He was openly carrying a holstered handgun, conduct which is
> >> legal in 42 states, and requires no license in New Mexico and
> >> twenty-five other states.  Learn more here.
>
> >> In response to a call from theater manager Robert Zigmond, the police
> >> entered the movie theater, physically seized Mr. St. John from his seat,
> >> took him outside, disarmed him, searched him, obtained personally
> >> identifiable information from his wallet, and only allowed him to
> >> re-enter the theater after St. John agreed to secure his gun in his
> >> vehicle.  Mr. St. John was never suspected of any crime nor issued a
> >> summons for violating any law.
>
> >> Importantly, no theater employee ever ordered Mr. St. John to leave.
> >> The police apparently simply decided to act as agents of the movie
> >> theater to enforce a private rule of conduct and not to enforce any rule
> >> of law.
>
> >> On these facts, Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police
> >> violated Matthew St. John's constitutional rights under the Fourth
> >> Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not
> >> "any reason to believe that a crime was afoot."  Judge Black's opinion
> >> is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts,
> >> e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000)
> >> (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth
> >> Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004)
> >> (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public
> >> street violates the Fourth Amendment).
>
> >> Mr. St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased
> >> with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation
> >> which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly
> >> punitive damages.  Garcia said that
>
> >> "[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented
> >> by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the
> >> government from detaining and searching individuals solely for
> >> exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state
> >> and federal constitutions."
>
> >> Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers' requested "qualified
> >> immunity," a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials
> >> acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the
> >> law was not "clearly established."  In this case, Judge Black concluded
> >> that
>
> >> "[r]elying on well-defined Supreme Court precedent, the Tenth Circuit
> >> and its sister courts have consistently held that officers may not seize
> >> or search an individual without a specific, legitimate reason. . . . The
> >> applicable law was equally clear in this case. Nothing in New Mexico law
> >> prohibited Mr. St. John from openly carrying a firearm in the Theater.
> >> Accordingly, Mr. St. John's motion for summary judgment is granted with
> >> regard to his Fourth Amendment and New Mexico constitutional claims.
> >> Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to the
> >> same and with regard to qualified immunity."
>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order is welcome news for the growing number
> >> of open carriers across the United States.  Though police harassment of
> >> open carriers is rare, it's not yet as rare as it should be - over the
> >> last several years open carriers detained without cause by police have
> >> sued and obtained cash settlements in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia
> >> (see additional settlement here), and Georgia.  More cases are still
> >> pending in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
>
> >> Judge Black's opinion and order can be read here.
>
> >> NOTE:  Mathew St. John's attorney, Miguel Garcia, is an associate at
> >> John R. Hakanson PC, 307 11th St., Alamogordo, NM 88310 and can be
> >> reached at Miguelo.Garcia AT gmail.com
>
> > Outstanding. I hope he sues the theater, too.
>
> So now every criminal and felon can openly carry their guns without fear of
> police intervertion.


WTF?

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:45:09 -0500, nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarrantees my right
>> to keep and bear arms since I am a US citizen.
>
>Yes, but it doesn't grant you an individual right to have guns.  It's a 
>right of the whole people, and the right is to keep a well-regulated 
>militia which is necessary to the security of our respective states.

Po' little loony.  I realise your declining mental state, what with
all the adverse rulings and all, causes you to FORGET what your
betters have already ruled.  SO let me EDUCATE you agin.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the
home.Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, butdoes not
limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operativeclause. The
operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an
individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

And in just a year or LESS, Wisconsin and Illinois will pass concealed
carry laws.  Becuz, if they don't, the new Supreme Court ruling,
finding them in violation of the SECOND AMENDMENT, will allow anyone
to carry guns in public without restriction.  Better git yo momma to
sell her house and buy one in Kanada loon.  With all those guns on the
streets in FREE AMERICA, yo little head is likely to Xplode.

And just to continue your education, here is a recent case;

Defendants lacked a justifiable suspicion that Mr. St. John had
committed a crime, was committing a crime or was about to commit a
crime. Indeed, Officer McColley conceded that he did not observe Mr.
St. John committing any crimes and that he arrived at the theater with
the suspicion that Mr. St. John was merely “showing a gun”, which is
not illegal in the State of New Mexico. Nor was there any reason to
believe that a crime was afoot. When they found him, Mr. St. John was
peacefully sitting through the previews for his second movie of the
day. Officers had no reason to believe that Mr. St. John had been,
was, or would be involved in any criminal activity whatsoever.
[Footnote: Defendants contend that Mr. St. John was about to commit a
crime because, had he refused to comply with their request that he
leave the premises, he would have been trespassing. If accepted, this
argument would significantly erode Fourth Amendment protections.
Because the Court finds no jurisprudential support for Defendants'
novel contention, no further discussion of it is necessary.] …

Moreover, Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a
crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion
sufficient to justify an investigatory detention. For example, in
United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3rd Cir. 2000), the Third
Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a
crowded place did not justify a search or seizure. In Ubiles, officers
seized Ubiles during a crowded celebration after they received a tip
that he was carrying a gun. Officers did so even though no applicable
law prohibited Ubiles from carrying a firearm during the celebration.
Holding that the search violated Ubiles’ Fourth Amendment rights, the
court noted that the situation was no different than if the informant
had told officers “that Ubiles possessed a wallet . . . and the
authorities had stopped him for that reason.”

The Tenth Circuit has also dealt with this question. In United States
v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir. 1993) the Tenth Circuit found that
an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered
that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked
sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity…. Though the King court ultimately
found that King’s detention was non-investigatory and could, thus, be
justified under the officer’s community caretaker function while he
advised King of the hazardous conditions that his honking created, the
King rationale does not apply here because Defendants had no
legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place.

More broadly, Defendants’ actions are not protected by the community
caretaker exception because they had no basis for believing that
anyone’s safety was at risk. Defendants simply received a report that
an individual was carrying a firearm in a location where individuals
could lawfully carry firearms. They received no indication that Mr.
St. John was behaving suspiciously or in a threatening manner. When
Defendants arrived, they found Mr. St. John sitting peaceably in the
Theater preparing to watch a movie. They had no basis for believing
that Mr. St. John’s use of the weapon was likely to become criminal,
cause a public disturbance or pose a threat to safety. Nor did anyone
seem particularly alarmed by Mr. St. John’s weapon. Indeed, the record
does not reveal that anyone—including the lone customer who spoke to
Officer McColley about Mr. St. John’s gun—was even concerned enough to
have left the Theater as a result.

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:06:38 -0500, nraclaptrap
<nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Daniel  wrote in
>news:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com: 
>
>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Daniel  wrote
>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe 
>> fd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>> > wrote: 
>>> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>
>>> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclaptr
>>> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the criminals
>>> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they murder
>>> >> >> somebody, righ
>>> > t
>>> >> >> Spaniel?
>>>
>>> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have to
>>> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>>> >> > someone up.
>>>
>>> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big step
>>> >> in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who hasn't had a
>>> >> background check
>>> > is
>>> >> automatically a criminal.  
>>>
>>> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>
>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>> 
>> Exactly.
>
>If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't catch 
>any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh 
>Spaniel?
>

No, Haynes says that felons don't have to incriminate themselves.


>That's why we'll have to register firearms, so we can catch dishonest gun 
>sellers and buyers.  And you'll do everything you can to help criminals 
>get guns.

No, the federal government has already determined that felons don't
have to incriminate themselves by voluntarily submitting to a
background check.

jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in
news:2i9nc5hc8ptbmbd985m45gubm762tkv2bp@4ax.com: 

> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:06:38 -0500, nraclaptrap
> <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Daniel  wrote in
>>news:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe 
>>> fd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> > wrote: 
>>>> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>
>>>> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclap
>>>> >> > tr ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>>>> >> >> criminals from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they
>>>> >> >> murder somebody, righ
>>>> > t
>>>> >> >> Spaniel?
>>>>
>>>> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have
>>>> >> > to wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>>>> >> > someone up.
>>>>
>>>> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>>> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>>>> >> step in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who
>>>> >> hasn't had a background check
>>>> > is
>>>> >> automatically a criminal.  
>>>>
>>>> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>>
>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>>> 
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>> catch any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
>> eh Spaniel?
> 
>No, Haynes says that felons don't have to incriminate themselves.

That's how we'll know they're criminals Jeffyjug.  They won't have 
background checks associated with their gun ownership.  That would be the 
law they violated, the Universal Firearm Transaction Background Check Act 
og 2010.  Then when we investigate further and find out they're felons.  

BTW, are you a felon Weenieboy?  Is that why you're so afraid of getting 
a background check?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

nraclaptrap <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote in 
news:Xns9C9C9EBF24E45piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131:

> jfma@ix.netcom.com wrote in
> news:2i9nc5hc8ptbmbd985m45gubm762tkv2bp@4ax.com: 
> 
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:06:38 -0500, nraclaptrap
>> <nraclaptrap@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>Daniel  wrote in
>>>news:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>> @comcast.net> wrote: 
>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe 
>>>> fd0fa6e5@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> > wrote: 
>>>>> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nraclap
>>>>> >> > tr ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>>>>> >> >> criminals from the law-abiding citizens?  You wait until they
>>>>> >> >> murder somebody, righ t Spaniel?
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you have
>>>>> >> > to wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>>>>> >> > someone up. 
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>>>> >> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>>>>> >> step in the right direction.  So anybody who has a gun who
>>>>> >> hasn't had a background check is
>>>>> >> automatically a criminal.  
>>>>>
>>>>> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.  Period...
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>>> catch any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
>>> eh Spaniel? 
>> 
>>No, Haynes says that felons don't have to incriminate themselves.
> 
> That's how we'll know they're criminals Jeffyjug.  They won't have 
> background checks associated with their gun ownership.  That would be the 
> law they violated, the Universal Firearm Transaction Background Check Act 
> og 2010.  Then when we investigate further and find out they're felons.  

Umm, how are we going to they have guns?

> 
> BTW, are you a felon Weenieboy?  Is that why you're so afraid of getting 
> a background check?
> 
> 

I have or had a government clearance. I know you don't. I've had background 
checks in 2 different states for a CCW. I stand a check everytime I buy a 
gun. What makes you think I fear a background check?



-- 
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to 
tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But 
being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and 
would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I 
feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

On Oct 7, 4:21 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Daniel  wrote innews:b7eaa796-9a13-43aa-8cd3-43071a69de5c@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote
> >> innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576
> > cece3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
> >> >> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.c
> >> >>om
> >> >> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Daniel  wrote
> >> >> > innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegro
> >> >> > ups .co
> >> > m:
>
> >> >> > > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> >> >> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > >> Daniel  wrote
> >> >> > >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> >> >> > > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap
> >> >> > >> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> >> >> > >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>
> >> >> > >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131n
> >> >> > >> >> > rac lap
> >> > tr
> >> >> > >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
> >> >> > >> >> >> criminal
> >> > s
> >> >> > >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they
> >> >> > >> >> >> murder somebody, righ
> >> >> > >> > t
> >> >> > >> >> >> Spaniel?
>
> >> >> > >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
> >> >> > >> >> > have t
> >> > o
> >> >> > >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before
> >> >> > >> >> > locking someone up.
>
> >> >> > >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks
> >> >> > >> >> on every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be
> >> >> > >> >> a big ste
> >> > p
> >> >> > >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who
> >> >> > >> >> hasn't had a background check
> >> >> > >> > is
> >> >> > >> >> automatically a criminal.
>
> >> >> > >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>
> >> >> > >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.
> >> >> > >> Period...
>
> >> >> > > Exactly.
>
> >> >> > If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you
> >> >> > can't catc
> >> > h
> >> >> > any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
> >> >> > eh Spaniel?
>
> >> >> #
> >> >> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
> >> >> #
>
> >> >> <whisper on>
> >> >> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
> >> >> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act
> >> >> ? <whisper off>
>
> >> > He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
>
> >> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell
> >> if the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check.
> >>  So t
> > he
> >> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>
> > If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the felon
> > AND the seller face criminal charges.
>
> Tell us how you catch them at it, Spaniel.
>
> You don't know.
>


You STILL haven't told us how many felons purchase guns LEGALLY,
dumbfuck. When do you plan to do that?

On Oct 7, 4:41 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Daniel  wrote innews:b7eaa796-9a13-43aa-8cd3-43071a69de5c@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote
> >> innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576
> > cece3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
> >> >> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.c
> >> >>om
> >> >> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Daniel  wrote
> >> >> > innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegro
> >> >> > ups .co
> >> > m:
>
> >> >> > > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> >> >> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > >> Daniel  wrote
> >> >> > >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> >> >> > > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap
> >> >> > >> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> >> >> > >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>
> >> >> > >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131n
> >> >> > >> >> > rac lap
> >> > tr
> >> >> > >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
> >> >> > >> >> >> criminal
> >> > s
> >> >> > >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they
> >> >> > >> >> >> murder somebody, righ
> >> >> > >> > t
> >> >> > >> >> >> Spaniel?
>
> >> >> > >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
> >> >> > >> >> > have t
> >> > o
> >> >> > >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before
> >> >> > >> >> > locking someone up.
>
> >> >> > >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks
> >> >> > >> >> on every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be
> >> >> > >> >> a big ste
> >> > p
> >> >> > >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who
> >> >> > >> >> hasn't had a background check
> >> >> > >> > is
> >> >> > >> >> automatically a criminal.
>
> >> >> > >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>
> >> >> > >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.
> >> >> > >> Period...
>
> >> >> > > Exactly.
>
> >> >> > If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you
> >> >> > can't catc
> >> > h
> >> >> > any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
> >> >> > eh Spaniel?
>
> >> >> #
> >> >> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
> >> >> #
>
> >> >> <whisper on>
> >> >> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
> >> >> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act
> >> >> ? <whisper off>
>
> >> > He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
>
> >> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell
> >> if the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check.
> >>  So t
> > he
> >> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>
> > If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the felon
> > AND the seller face criminal charges.
>
> The seller faces charges ONLY if the seller knew the buyer was a felon.
>
> > So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>
> That's been answered several times.


I know the answer, I'm just waiting for nraclaptrap to figure it out.

On Oct 8, 10:39 am, Bama Brian  wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576cece3136@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
> >>>> "Daniel"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
> >>>> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Daniel  wrote
> >>>>> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups
> >>>>> .co
> >>> m:
> >>>>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> >>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Daniel  wrote
> >>>>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> >>>>>> fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
> >>>>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nrac
> >>>>>>>>>> lap
> >>> tr
> >>>>>>>>>> ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal
> >>> s
> >>>>>>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
> >>>>>>>>>>> somebody, righ
> >>>>>>>> t
> >>>>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
> >>>>>>>>>> have t
> >>> o
> >>>>>>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
> >>>>>>>>>> someone up.
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
> >>>>>>>>> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
> >>>>>>>>> ste
> >>> p
> >>>>>>>>> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't
> >>>>>>>>> had a background check
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> automatically a criminal.
> >>>>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
> >>>>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one. Period...
> >>>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
> >>>>> catc
> >>> h
> >>>>> any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
> >>>>> Spaniel?
> >>>> #
> >>>> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
> >>>> #
> >>>> <whisper on>
> >>>> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
> >>>> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act ?
> >>>> <whisper off>
> >>> He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
> >> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell if
> >> the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check.  So the
> >> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>
> > If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the felon
> > AND the seller face criminal charges.
>
> > So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>
> Shit, who cares what you ask?  You're nothing but a troll.
>


You should take your own adice. Learn who you are insulting.

"Daniel"  wrote in message 
news:6431b842-7d46-4950-b1df-803fc31ac2b0@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 4:41 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Daniel  wrote 
> innews:b7eaa796-9a13-43aa-8cd3-43071a69de5c@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote
> >> innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576
> > cece3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
> >> >> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.c
> >> >>om
> >> >> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Daniel  wrote
> >> >> > innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegro
> >> >> > ups .co
> >> > m:
>
> >> >> > > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> >> >> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > >> Daniel  wrote
> >> >> > >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> >> >> > > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap
> >> >> > >> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> >> >> > >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>
> >> >> > >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131n
> >> >> > >> >> > rac lap
> >> > tr
> >> >> > >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
> >> >> > >> >> >> criminal
> >> > s
> >> >> > >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they
> >> >> > >> >> >> murder somebody, righ
> >> >> > >> > t
> >> >> > >> >> >> Spaniel?
>
> >> >> > >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
> >> >> > >> >> > have t
> >> > o
> >> >> > >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before
> >> >> > >> >> > locking someone up.
>
> >> >> > >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks
> >> >> > >> >> on every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be
> >> >> > >> >> a big ste
> >> > p
> >> >> > >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who
> >> >> > >> >> hasn't had a background check
> >> >> > >> > is
> >> >> > >> >> automatically a criminal.
>
> >> >> > >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>
> >> >> > >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.
> >> >> > >> Period...
>
> >> >> > > Exactly.
>
> >> >> > If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you
> >> >> > can't catc
> >> > h
> >> >> > any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
> >> >> > eh Spaniel?
>
> >> >> #
> >> >> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
> >> >> #
>
> >> >> <whisper on>
> >> >> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
> >> >> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act
> >> >> ? <whisper off>
>
> >> > He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
>
> >> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell
> >> if the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check.
> >> So t
> > he
> >> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>
> > If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the felon
> > AND the seller face criminal charges.
>
> The seller faces charges ONLY if the seller knew the buyer was a felon.
>
> > So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>
> That's been answered several times.
#
# I know the answer, I'm just waiting for nraclaptrap to figure it out.

He won't
He exhibits many of the same denial symptoms you do.

"Daniel"  wrote in message 
news:8a8c59be-a6be-4f92-ad0d-a5b19f61c927@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 10:39 am, Bama Brian  wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Daniel  wrote 
> >> innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576cece3136@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
> >>>> "Daniel"  wrote in message
> >>>>news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
> >>>> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Daniel  wrote
> >>>>> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups
> >>>>> .co
> >>> m:
> >>>>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> >>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Daniel  wrote
> >>>>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
> >>>>>> fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
> >>>>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nrac
> >>>>>>>>>> lap
> >>> tr
> >>>>>>>>>> ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
> >>>>>>>>>>> criminal
> >>> s
> >>>>>>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
> >>>>>>>>>>> somebody, righ
> >>>>>>>> t
> >>>>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
> >>>>>>>>>> have t
> >>> o
> >>>>>>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
> >>>>>>>>>> someone up.
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
> >>>>>>>>> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
> >>>>>>>>> ste
> >>> p
> >>>>>>>>> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't
> >>>>>>>>> had a background check
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> automatically a criminal.
> >>>>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
> >>>>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one. Period...
> >>>>>> Exactly.
> >>>>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
> >>>>> catc
> >>> h
> >>>>> any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
> >>>>> Spaniel?
> >>>> #
> >>>> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
> >>>> #
> >>>> <whisper on>
> >>>> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
> >>>> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act ?
> >>>> <whisper off>
> >>> He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
> >> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell if
> >> the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check. So 
> >> the
> >> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>
> > If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the felon
> > AND the seller face criminal charges.
>
> > So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>
> Shit, who cares what you ask? You're nothing but a troll.
>
#
# You should take your own adice. Learn who you are insulting.

On the subject of legalizing drugs and beer alcohol content, he may be 
closer to the truth than you realize
    You exhibit pretty well the same behavior as clappy, aka loony weasel, 
does.

Daniel wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:39 am, Bama Brian  wrote:
>> Daniel wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Daniel  wrote innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576cece3136@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
>>>>>> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>>>> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups
>>>>>>> .co
>>>>> m:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>>>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>>>>>>>> fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nrac
>>>>>>>>>>>> lap
>>>>> tr
>>>>>>>>>>>> ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody, righ
>>>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have t
>>>>> o
>>>>>>>>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before locking
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone up.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks on
>>>>>>>>>>> every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be a big
>>>>>>>>>>> ste
>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>>>> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>> had a background check
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> automatically a criminal.
>>>>>>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>>>>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one. Period...
>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you can't
>>>>>>> catc
>>>>> h
>>>>>>> any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want eh
>>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>>> #
>>>>>> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
>>>>>> #
>>>>>> <whisper on>
>>>>>> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
>>>>>> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal act ?
>>>>>> <whisper off>
>>>>> He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
>>>> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to tell if
>>>> the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background check.  So the
>>>> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>>> If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the felon
>>> AND the seller face criminal charges.
>>> So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>> Shit, who cares what you ask?  You're nothing but a troll.
>>
> 
> 
> You should take your own adice. Learn who you are insulting.

At the moment you're just another troll.  That you believe in the 2nd 
Amemdment is a good thing - but it's just a start towards maintaining 
your status as a free citizen.  The last hundred years in the US have 
been an accelerated march to outright tyranny, beginning with the War On 
(Some) Drugs back in the 1930's.  (Look up Henry J. Anslinger for some 
information on the fedgov's beginning drug war.)  So unless you are 
willing to stand up for all the rights that the fedgov is trying to take 
away, you're just another part of the problem.

So as to who you are, tell us, Daniel.  Drop the Ad Hominems and talk to 
us as a civil person does.  If you can't do that, expect more abuse 
until you get tired of it and go annoy some other group.

-- 
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

Bama Brian  wrote in
news:haopn5$qvg$1@news.eternal-september.org: 

> Daniel wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 10:39 am, Bama Brian  wrote:
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>> innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576cece3136@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups
>>>>> .com: 
>>>>>> On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroup
>>>>>>> s.com ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap
>>>>>>> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>>>>> innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.googlegr
>>>>>>>> oups .co
>>>>>> m:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>>>>>>>>> @comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel  wrote
>>>>>>>>>> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>>>>>>>>> fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap
>>>>>>>>>>> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.131nra
>>>>>>>>>>>>> c lap
>>>>>> tr
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>> s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they murder
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody, righ
>>>>>>>>>>> t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spaniel?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the way the law works in a civilized society; you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have t
>>>>>> o
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait until a crime's actually been committed before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> locking someone up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background checks
>>>>>>>>>>>> on every gun transaction, whether FFL or private, would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> a big ste
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who hasn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> had a background check
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> automatically a criminal.
>>>>>>>>>>> And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>>>>>>>>> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.
>>>>>>>>>> Period... 
>>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>> If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you
>>>>>>>> can't catc
>>>>>> h
>>>>>>>> any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you want
>>>>>>>> eh Spaniel?
>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>> <whisper on>
>>>>>>> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT legally
>>>>>>> posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an illegal
>>>>>>> act ? <whisper off>
>>>>>> He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
>>>>> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to
>>>>> tell if the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background
>>>>> check.  So the default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>>>> If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the
>>>> felon AND the seller face criminal charges.
>>>> So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>>> Shit, who cares what you ask?  You're nothing but a troll.
>>
>> You should take your own adice. Learn who you are insulting.
> 
> At the moment you're just another troll.  That you believe in the 2nd 
> Amemdment is a good thing - but it's just a start towards maintaining 
> your status as a free citizen.  The last hundred years in the US have 
> been an accelerated march to outright tyranny, beginning with the War
> On (Some) Drugs back in the 1930's.  (Look up Henry J. Anslinger for
> some information on the fedgov's beginning drug war.)  So unless you
> are willing to stand up for all the rights that the fedgov is trying
> to take away, you're just another part of the problem.
> 
> So as to who you are, tell us, Daniel.  Drop the Ad Hominems and talk
> to us as a civil person does.  If you can't do that, expect more abuse
> until you get tired of it and go annoy some other group.

If you want Daniel to kiss your ass just say so.  We know you can think 
critically, CrammaJamma, yet you choose not to when it comes to gun 
issues.

Why would you do that?


-- 


NRACLAPTRAP

Daniel  wrote in
news:6431b842-7d46-4950-b1df-803fc31ac2b0@m11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com: 

> On Oct 7, 4:41 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
> @comcast.net> wrote:
>> Daniel  wrote
>> innews:b7eaa796-9a13-43aa-8cd3-4307 
> 1a69de5c@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 7, 1:27 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Daniel  wrote
>> >> innews:8c5a27d4-d14d-480f-9c87-4576
>> > cece3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 6, 11:21 pm, "SaPeIsMa"  wrote:
>> >> >> "Daniel"  wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:c932a16e-1ade-4a83-8775-68d5ca8323e2@p15g2000vbl.googlegroup
>> >> >>s.c om
>> >> >> ... On Oct 5, 9:06 pm, nraclaptrap
>> >> >> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Daniel  wrote
>> >> >> > innews:c64ce367-2725-4fc3-95b9-d896473d18e8@j19g2000vbp.google
>> >> >> > gro ups .co
>> >> > m:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Oct 4, 6:19 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)
>> >> >> > > @comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> Daniel  wrote
>> >> >> > >> innews:44b98dc4-d0b0-4f18-aed9-fbfe
>> >> >> > > fd0fa...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> >> > >> > On Sep 28, 2:32 pm, nraclaptrap
>> >> >> > >> > <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >> Bert Hyman  wrote in
>> >> >> > >> >> news:Xns9C947EFFAE7DBVeebleFetzer@ 216.250.184.7:
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> > Innews:Xns9C8E753094C71piotu0345go2r3ndec@216.196.97.1
>> >> >> > >> >> > 31n rac lap
>> >> > tr
>> >> >> > >> >> > ap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> >> Well if everybody's carrying guns how do you tell
>> >> >> > >> >> >> the criminal
>> >> > s
>> >> >> > >> >> >> from the law-abiding citizens? You wait until they
>> >> >> > >> >> >> murder somebody, righ
>> >> >> > >> > t
>> >> >> > >> >> >> Spaniel?
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> > That's the way the law works in a civilized society;
>> >> >> > >> >> > you have t
>> >> > o
>> >> >> > >> >> > wait until a crime's actually been committed before
>> >> >> > >> >> > locking someone up.
>>
>> >> >> > >> >> Actually, preventing crimes by requiring background
>> >> >> > >> >> checks on every gun transaction, whether FFL or
>> >> >> > >> >> private, would be a big ste
>> >> > p
>> >> >> > >> >> in the right direction. So anybody who has a gun who
>> >> >> > >> >> hasn't had a background check
>> >> >> > >> > is
>> >> >> > >> >> automatically a criminal.
>>
>> >> >> > >> > And how many criminals bother to legally purchase a gun?
>>
>> >> >> > >> If they are felons, they cannot legally purchase one.
>> >> >> > >> Period...
>>
>> >> >> > > Exactly.
>>
>> >> >> > If you don't get background checks on private gun sales, you
>> >> >> > can't catc
>> >> > h
>> >> >> > any felons who buy those guns, and that's exactly what you
>> >> >> > want eh Spaniel?
>>
>> >> >> #
>> >> >> # How many felons buy their guns legally?
>> >> >> #
>>
>> >> >> <whisper on>
>> >> >> Do you think he can figure out that since felons can NOT
>> >> >> legally posess firearms, the very act of purchasing one is an
>> >> >> illegal act ? <whisper off>
>>
>> >> > He can't figure out if the sun is shiniing or not.
>>
>> >> When felons buy guns through private sellers there's no way to
>> >> tell if the sale is legal or illegal because there's no background
>> >> check.  So t
>> > he
>> >> default assumption is that the sale is legal.
>>
>> > If a felon buys a gun, it is an UNLAWFUL PURCHASE, and both the
>> > felon AND the seller face criminal charges.
>>
>> The seller faces charges ONLY if the seller knew the buyer was a
>> felon. 
>>
>> > So I ask you dipshits AGAIN, How many felons buy guns legally?
>>
>> That's been answered several times.
> 
> 
> I know the answer, I'm just waiting for nraclaptrap to figure it out.

He won't.  You will just end up with one stubborn person posting to 
another who won't respond to your question.

-- 
Sleep well tonight, 

RD (The Sandman)

On TV, they show how detergents take out bloodstains.  A pretty 
violent image. I think if you've got a Tshirt full of bloodstains, 
maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem.  Maybe you should get rid
of the body before you do the wash and get some different friends.