Assembly rejects ban on gun sales at San Francisco's Cow Palace

"SACRAMENTO - A proposed ban on gun shows at San Francisco's state-owned Cow Palace failed to pass the state Assembly on Thursday, but backers will try again later this month.

The bill, aiming to stop Cow Palace gun shows in a neighborhood plagued by shootings and murders, received a 38-36 vote, three votes shy of 41-vote majority. If passed, it would have added the state facility to a growing list of county fairgrounds across California that have banned the shows.

Thursday's vote represented another episode in the state's fierce debate over constitutional rights of gun owners and those trying to limit guns. Many Democrats claimed the proposed ban is a "modest proposal" sought by residents of nearby crime-plagued neighborhoods. But rural Republicans argued that legal gun shows don't cause urban shootings. Several Democrats joined Republicans in rejecting a ban.

"This bill will do nothing to solve that problem," said Assemblyman Russ Bogh, R-Beaumont. "It will make a number of us on this floor feel good, and leave the public with the notion that this bill is addressing the violence in California.""

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/9385950.htm


This is a perfect example of gun control gone awry. Making people feel good, and addressing gun crime, are NOT the same things. All the ban would do is cost money/revenue that might otherwise be used for REAL preventitive measures.

Actually, it's a pretty good goddamn idea....

Would you please refrain from the blasphemous sort. There are some Christian progressives on this board that may find that particularly offensive.

I find pathetic weenies whacking their johnson over gun porn offensive, skippy.

I find half assed "tough guys" gloating about shooting their fellow citizens offensive, skippy.

I find "pro gun democrats" pimping for Republicans and posting right wing talking points offensive, skippy.

Why are you posting to a message board if you don't want arguments to your opinions?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where to stick their ignorant and dishonest horseshit, son."

who woulda thunk?

and daydreaming about shooting other Americans, when suddenly, doggone it! Somebody says something offensive like "goddamn"!

It's enough to bring tears to your eyes, isn't it?

on their vinegar stroke, that really pisses them off if you ruin it for them ;)

this board that find profanity, particularly that based upon a deity, offensive.

You can believe this: I'll not be offended by the language itself. I've likely invented a few words most have yet to learn.

:shrug:

to which you are replying, you would have learned that I was asking for simple respect for the sensibilities of those who find blasphemy offensive. The inference of your question is that I am one of those who would be offended. In no way did I state, imply, or infer that I am or was in that group.

Your point is?

...I have three words for you - get over it.

The last time I checked one of the greatest things about libs in general is their concern for others.

The language I referred to in those posts (which, once again, I in no way find offensive) is offensive to many Christians.

What's next? Should we get over racial epithets? sexual slurs? ethnic slanders?

It's merely a matter of concern for the sensibilities of others. You have stated in the past that you are physically challenged. Would you be offende by references to gimps or crips? I hope that you would find offense in people using those terms in conversation. I do. Yes, I've the little wheel chair guy on my license plates. They don't give those away for nothing.

The language I referred to in those posts (which,
once again, I in no way find offensive) is offensive
to many Christians.

What's next? Should we get over racial epithets?
sexual slurs? ethnic slanders?


No ... I'm sure that the next thing in this series is a fish.

I'm good at those IQ test thingies. I can identify the relationship between things in a series.

1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ____ -- 32!!

Use of words that some christians think belongs them them exclusively, use of words that are designed to degrade members of particular groups, ________ -- a fish!!

Do I get a prize?

I think my apples and oranges are prettier than yours.

...but many non-Christians (myself included) are sick & tired of Christains who have to inject their Christianity into every discussion. And who come off as feeling that they are somehow better than non-Christians. And that's the impression I got from your posts.

Maybe it's because I work in Colorado Springs, where I'm surrounded on a daily basis by fundamentalist assholes and so-called Christians who use their religion to spread hate. Maybe it's just all the crap in general that first turned me away from Catholisism, and later Christianity in general.

If you're on a mission to clean up people's language, good luck. The terms you consider blasphemous are considered common usage by many people.

In closing, yes, I'm physically challenged. But I'm also frustrated and fed up with self-described Christians who aren't the least bit Christ-like in the way they live their lives. I run into them on a daily basis.

groups. My only concern is for those who, as the saying goes, practice what they preach. I keep seeing my grandfather in my mind's eye. He was a minister, but you'd never have known it unless you asked or attended his congregation. The took that line about praying in your closet very seriously.

I'm likely just as annoyed as you by those who preach constantly, yet deny their words with their actions.

Insofar as this is concerned:
If you're on a mission to clean up people's language, good luck. The terms you consider blasphemous are considered common usage by many people.

I'm on no mission of any sort. Also, doesn't that bring every mom's old saying to mind? "If all your friends jumped off a bridge..."

I'll grant that there are hippocrits in every group

... are there rhinobloods?


Oh, dang, it's "crips", not "crits". So I guess that would have to be rhinobloops or something ...



Also, doesn't that bring every mom's old saying to mind? "If all your friends jumped off a bridge..."

Hmm, well, yes, it would -- if anyone had actually suggested that s/he did something, or anyone else ought to do something, because someone else did it.


There are probably effective means available for reducing the numbers of random stray thoughts that come to mind.

Why are you posting to a message board if you don't want arguments to your opinions?

What connection might there be between this false premise-loaded question and the topic at hand?

You expressed distaste for something someone did (if you weren't expressing it on your own behalf, your expression of it was doubly pointless). The person to whom you made that objection expressed distaste for some things others did.

You respond by asserting (yes, that's what the premise in your question was: an assertion, and it was demonstrably false) that someone doesn't want "arguments to <his> opinion"??

Have you told us what planet you're visiting from yet?

How about: why are you chiding other people for doing things you find distasteful if you don't want to hear other people's expressions of distaste?

Now that one makes sense.

... dribble", I think.

I mean, you were obviously looking for a fitting title for your post, and aiming to describe what you were doing in it ...

Always glad to help out.

the NRA bought legislators can force the community to accept anyone they demand? What's next? Forcing communities to accept fundies or violent pornographers?

I think the assembly had the vote, not the community. Id also suspect that the majority of the assembly doesnt regard gun shows as "undesirables". And I think you'd have a hard time convincing ANYONE that the CA state assembly is comprised of "NRA bought legislators".

Sounds to me like the majority of them correctly determined that a gun show doesnt cause crime.

"But Assemblyman Jay La Suer, a La Mesa Republican opposed to the bill, said the show has been there for 19 years and police said "not one firearm purchased there has ever been associated with a crime."

I guess it would make residents "feel" better though.

"the majority of the assembly doesnt regard gun shows as "undesirables""
Hell, one of the scummier fuckwits there got photographed next to swastika at one such klavern....

"At a Sacramento press conference to highlight the congressman's record on guns - which earned him an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association last year - they showed a video in which an Issa campaign stand from his failed 1998 U.S. Senate bid is shown at the entrance to a gun show where another exhibit displays a flag with a Nazi swastika. Meanwhile Davis allies have drawn reporters' attention to embarrassing chapters from Issa's past, including a 1980 prosecution for allegedly faking the theft of his car. "

http://www.dailydemocrat.com/articles/2003/07/07/news/news2.txt

"Assemblyman Jay La Suer, a La Mesa Republican"
What was the name of this website again?

Really interested in how Assemblyman Jay would know that.

"Several anti-choice legislators are opposing this year's budget because it protects California's 23 year commitment for Medi-Cal funding for abortion, which provides access to reproductive healthcare for all Californians, regardless of socio-economic status.  Do not allow your legislator to deny this access to the women of California - take action and contact your representative.  
Send this message to:
Assembly Member Jay La Suer (if you live in CA, and in district 77)"

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/CA_Budget_6_29_04/step1.tcl

It makes me feel tingly all over!

when you juxtapose it with the hand-wringing by our "pro gun democrats" in the idiotic thread about the "second amendment rights" on Pitcairn Island....

second amendment rights on Pitcairn Island. Pitcairn Island doesn't have a second amendment as far as I know. Am I mistaken? What right does Pitcairn Island's second amendment protect?

that I just wanted some clarification.

"pro gun democrats".

I'm agreeing with FeebMaster on something. Probably won't ever happen again......

The meaning hasn't changed since I first started saying it. Pro-gun "Democrats" just makes more sense given what the people using it are trying to imply.

I wouldn't have thought it was so very complicated. But far be it from me to insinuate that y'all are just trying to invent something to gripe about.

"What right does Pitcairn Island's second amendment protect?"

From what I can gather, it states that they have the right to a small portion of my salary (amongst other things $8000 per cargo ship, plus electricity, refurbishment of all buildings, road building).

The subsidy discussed in THOC

The other ammendment to their constitution seems to cover being ungrateful for my contribution.

They actually had the Gaul (hehehe) to consider a switch to being a French protectorate

"Undersirables" is a value judgement on your part. The Nazis considered Jews, Romani people, and homosexuals to be undesirables. As long as people aren't doing anything illegal, everyone in THIS country has the same right to use public property as everyone else.

It would be very much against our principles for a government to decide that people who aren't criminals are undesirables.

"The Nazis considered Jews, Romani people, and homosexuals to be undesirables."
And now the Nazis consider gun shows marketing bonanzas....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

there must be Nazis at this particular gun show?

you'd think with all gun owners being racists that one of the larger neo-nazi groups in the US would have more than 1500 members.

If the assembly decided to ban the sale of, say, cheese sandwiches at the fairgrounds, because of the mess or the smell or public health issues, they'd have every right to do so. It's a state fairground. I will concur that "undesirables" is an unfortunate phrase, but the state assembly has every right to decide what will and won't be sold at state fairgrounds, with First Amendment exceptions.

The gun shows are not a public health issue.

I will concur that "undesirables" is an unfortunate phrase,...

It's downright bigoted.

...but the state assembly has every right to decide what will and won't be sold at state fairgrounds....

Precisely BECAUSE it is a state facility it belongs to ALL the people, and everyone has a right to equal access to it.

Besides, a MAJORITY of the 2/3 Democratic state assembly just rejected the bill, so THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

:D

The right of the people to have equal access to the fairgrounds has exactly nothing to do with whether or not they sell guns there. I'm sure there are a lot of things that aren't bought or sold at the Cow Palace, and that isn't denying anyone access to the fairgrounds. I can't buy a car at Walgreen's, but that doesn't mean that Walgreen's has denied anybody "equal access."

Why are you yelling? What's with you today?

I think I'll have a celebratory beer as soon as I can duck out of work.

Maybe a nice sushi dinner too.

:toast:

Why are you yelling? What's with you today?

You can tell when someone is yelling on the Internet when they have their CAPS LOCK KEY ON. Lower-case or mixed-case is normal speech.

:D

while out of the other side, you argue that they had no right to decide.

Mixed case is normal speech when capitals are used at the beginning of a sentence, for proper names, or for acronyms. When whole words are in caps for none of those reasons, it's YELLING.

...while out of the other side, you argue that they had no right to decide....

I've never said any such thing.

Here's the real deal courtesy of my friend who knows some of the people whose job it is to make the day-to-day decisions about what happens at the Cow Palace:

The people who want the gun shows banned are a bunch of whining pussies. They tried to get the shows banned by working through normal channels, and got laughed at. The city and county governments wouldn't give them the time of day either (not that it would be their job but they can be very influential if they want to be), so in desperation they went all the way to the state legislature.

An analogy would be going to the manager of your local Wal-Mart and complaining about them selling green basketballs. The manager refuses to stop selling them, so you complain to the district manager and up the chain of command, finally taking your case to the board of directors. The directors also recognize you are a loony but want to get rid of you without too much of a fuss, so they take a formal vote and decide that the store can keep selling green basketballs.

The state Assembly has the power to decide what goes on at the Cow Palace, but involving it in such decisions is a complete waste of time and resources. If the legislature has time to take such a ridiculous proposal to a vote, maybe Governor Scwarzenegger is right and we should go back to a part-time government.

Gun shows bring a lot of income to the Cow Palace and nearby businesses, and have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the crime problem in the area.

"The people who want the gun shows banned are a bunch of whining pussies."

And it went downhill from there. What relevance do you think it has to post someone's deeply prejudiced, abusive, and totally unsupported opinion? What do you think it proves? That there's someone in the world who agrees with you? I never said there wasn't.

And you're still complaining about the assembly hearing the issue, all the while saying that you're doing no such thing.

You are welcome to accept or reject it, to believe me or not, to care or not. Whatever pleases you is OK with me.

. What relevance do you think it has to post someone's deeply prejudiced, abusive, and totally unsupported opinion?

IMO the person whose opinion I have relayed to you is very reliable and rational.

And you're still complaining about the assembly hearing the issue, all the while saying that you're doing no such thing.

I'll say it now: Having such a ridiculous matter go all the way to the state Assembly is a waste of resources.

All along you've been denying that you and the other RKBAers are the ones complaining about this matter, and now you're willing to admit that the assembly hearing a legitimate petition was "a waste of resources."

Tell me the truth. Can you read the quote you posted and sincerely state that it's a "reliable and rational" expression of opinion? Would you go so far as to say that it's a Democratic or progressive opinion? Because I don't hear the phrase "whining pussies" too often from progressives, or from reliable and rational people for that matter. I believe it is common usage among freepers, however.

Tell me the truth. Can you read the quote you posted and sincerely state that it's a "reliable and rational" expression of opinion?

The individual who offered that opinion is a good personal friend of mine, so yes I think it's reliable and rational.

Would you go so far as to say that it's a Democratic or progressive opinion?

It's the personal opinion of a person who is registered as "Declined to state", which means non-partisan in California.

Because I don't hear the phrase "whining pussies" too often from progressives, or from reliable and rational people for that matter. I believe it is common usage among freepers, however...

Some of the "pro gun control" "liberals" and "progressives" on this board have their own repertoire of put-downs which range from sexual through scatalogical, which they use "liberally" when attempting to demean some of their fellow Democrats who happen to be "pro-gun" or in my case pro-"gun". :D

I'll spare the board a recap of those. IMO the use of blanket ad hominem attacks and the flavors thereof is not specific to any political philosophy, rather it expresses an intensity of opinion regardless of who is saying what.

that "whining pussies" is specifically a slam at women.

Pussies is a reference to cats.

Now perhaps you'd like to give me an example, any example, of our resident pro gun control liberals using insults and put-downs that are demeaning to women and minorities, like your "reliable and rational" friend did.

Or perhaps you don't see what difference that makes?

n/t

You know what you are supposed to do about it. Slurs of gender, race, ethnicity, etc. are prohibited here. If you think I posted one then please take it up with the proper channels.

stinking up the place like a dead fish. I know it isn't your phrase but your friend's. However, you seem unwilling to see anything wrong with it, much less the degree to which it discredits your friend and his argument, especially since that argument was 100% opinion and 0% fact. It is becoming an issue of credibility, and not just his.

Both the odious phrase and the transparently silly rationalization speak volumes....

You're treading on the 1st Amendement there. We may disagree with fundies, but we all share the same rights of expression.

Insofar as the gun show is concerned, on what grounds would one ban a legal activity? As long as the firearms offered and shown at the affair are legal in California and within the City of San Francisco where's the rub? Most types of pornography are legal. While I don't care for it, I don't see that it should be censored in any way.

Barring a legal show because one disagrees with it's content is a dangerous thing.

"on what grounds would one ban a legal activity"
On the grounds that it's a public nuisance, skippy....

"Most types of pornography are legal."
Most people can distinguish between their sex lives and firearms..although it seems some fetishists have a problem doing so.

So you don't care for my analogy? Make one of your own that you'll be sure to understand.

The city has as much right to ban that as it does to ban a Klan meeting or a hate literature distribution...

I abhor the message of the hate groups, but their right to spew their venom is constitutionally protected. It's repeatedly been upheld by various courts. (Get your own links, you can search almost as well as I.)

... or to admit they get.

I abhor the message of the hate groups, but their right to spew their venom is constitutionally protected.

So ... big fucking deal.

If you could explain why this point was making in this thread, ... well, you might have a point.

Is their rigiht to spew their venom IN YOUR LIVING ROOM constitutionally protected?

There's a huge difference. Is that beyond your comprehension?

Is their rigiht to spew their venom IN YOUR LIVING ROOM constitutionally protected?

Last time I checked, The Cow Palace is a public venue
There's a huge difference. Is that beyond your comprehension?


So lemme get this straight ... and I'll probably need you to help me out, but let me take a shot first. If I can pretend to join the dark side for just a moment here:

So ... you're saying that the legislature would be unable to make a law prohibiting the use of public property for Al-Qaeda recruitment rallies?

So ... you're saying that a city council would be unable to pass by-laws prohibiting the use of public property for Ku Klux Klan fundraising events?

So ... you're saying that a public body in charge of a park would be unable to make regulations prohibiting the use of the park for a festival celebrating Hitler's birthday?

That's what you're saying, right?

What I will say in response to this obfuscation and misdirection is this:

Free speech is protected in this country, regardless of how much one or a group, or even the majority may object to the message.

Who ever brought Al-Quaeda into this?

If the local government or management of a piece of public property chooses to bar any group because of its message, it must also bar similar groups with opposing messages. It's an equal time/opportunity thing.

The ACLU got this issue fairly well settled in Skokie, IL.

Clear as the sky, clear as a bell.

If the local government or management of a piece of public property chooses to bar any group because of its message, it must also bar similar groups with opposing messages. It's an equal time/opportunity thing.

What's all this noise about messages? I thought we were talking about retail sales.

Who ever brought Al-Quaeda into this?

Well, you're the one talking about messages. I haven't figured out why, yet, but all the same, you're the one doing it. One message is the same as another, right?

So as long as the body that controlled the property barred Republicans, it could bar Al-Queda. Okay.

The ACLU got this issue fairly well settled in Skokie, IL.

Some folks were selling something at retail in Skokie, were they? Guess I missed that one. Damned if I know what the ACLU might have had to do with it.

'nuff said. I'm tired of talking to a brick wall.

I mean, I assume we're in the "what's your favourite fruit" thread now ...

All of your examples have happened

The KKK was allowed to march in a parade in Skokie IL.

Yes the public sale of public held land to Muslim militants was upheld by the courts in IA, contrary to legislative intent.
.
And the city of San Francisco denied the Boy Scouts of America from using a park they had used for more than 100 years, after SCOTUS ruled that the Boy Scouts violated no Constitutional provisions.

All of your examples have happened

So ... you're saying that the legislature would be unable to make a law prohibiting the use of public property for Al-Qaeda recruitment rallies?
Yes the public sale of public held land to Muslim militants was upheld by the courts in IA, contrary to legislative intent.

So ... you're saying that a city council would be unable to pass by-laws prohibiting the use of public property for Ku Klux Klan fundraising events?
The KKK was allowed to march in a parade in Skokie IL.

I think I'm going to have to borrow your specs for this one. You're obviously seeing something I'm not seeing ... like, some connection between the things I said and the things you said.

So ... you're saying that a public body in charge of a park would be unable to make regulations prohibiting the use of the park for a festival celebrating Hitler's birthday?
And the city of San Francisco denied the Boy Scouts of America from using a park they had used for more than 100 years, after SCOTUS ruled that the Boy Scouts violated no Constitutional provisions.

(And excuse me, but doesn't this last bit belong over in the thread in CR where ... someone ... was busily gnawing at it all last week?)

Anyhow, the point is -- I WAS SAYING that all of the examples I made up WOULD be within the authority of the legislature in question.

Lame as your response may have been overall, it seems that your third point indicates that you agree with me. Since it was the only response that was remotely on point, your first two points having had nothing at all to do with anything I said, shall I assume that your effort, lame as it may have been, was meant to support what I was implying: that the legislature DOES have the authority to do all of the things I was asking about?

They can ban pretty much anything they want. They can ban alcohol. I'm sure they already do ban pornography - you ever see pornography for sale at a state fair? It's not a question of what they agree or disagree with - that's a strongly disingenuous way of putting it.

The state Assembly REJECTED the bill to ban gun shows.

You just don't like the outcome. Too bad. You can sit there in Texas and cry about it for all I care.

What's got you so worked up, anyway?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you've got me on Ignore, how come you keep replying to my posts? And if you really don't care what I have to say - how come you keep replying to my posts?

Already read and replied to.

Think again.

http://www.cowpalace.com/schedule.html

Exotic Erotic Ball
CAUTION: THE EXOTIC EROTIC BALL WEB SITE IS AN ADULTS-ONLY SITE
Saturday October 23 8:00pm - 2:00am

What do you think they sell at that event... "smelly cheese sandwiches"?

That must be so offensive to people with tiny weenies and a gun fetish...adults discussing REAL sex.

Be sure and write an angry letter to Jay LaSewer....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've got some really big guns and a weenie to match. (Or so my wife says.) I just don't care for porn. Don't see anything wrong about it. It's just not for me. If I can't touch it, I don't care to look at photos of it.

But they could prohibit it if they wanted to. It's their property.

They haven't banned the "Exotic Erotic Ball" because it poses no harm or threat. There's no proof that the gun show poses any harm or threat either. So why ban it unless the reason is political or based on bias and or emotionalism?

They can decide what is and isn't bought and sold there on any basis they please. They don't need to prove anything to anybody. And they decided in your favor anyway, so what's all the fuss about?

It's State owned property... payed for and maintained by CA residents, including gun owners. If it were private property, then I could agree with you.

The proposed ban was brought about by a "modest proposal" sought by residents of nearby crime-plagued neighborhoods". They didn't want the gun show held there (ignoring the wishes of other tax paying Californiians).

I could understand the concern if these guns were being bought up by the truck load by "gang bangers", but they're not.


"And they decided in your favor anyway, so what's all the fuss about?"

Because it's not over.

"A proposed ban on gun shows at San Francisco's state-owned Cow Palace failed to pass the state Assembly on Thursday, but backers will try again later this month".

:shrug:

Some people like the idea of guns being sold at state fairgrounds. Others don't. Both sides make their case and the assembly decides. That's called democracy. So what's the problem? Are you trying to say that they only have the right to decide if you personally agree with their decision? Because that isn't democracy.

One group of people sought to curtail the activities simply because they disapproved of it... no other reason. If they had a valid case or gripe, I wouldn't be complaining.

Suppose instead the locals had sought to ban the "Exotic Erotic Ball" instead? Simply because they disapproved of it (note: I'm not begrudging their right to be heard, just their motives).

Would it have been right or proper for the Assembly to approve the ban?
Or should they rightfully vote against it?

If I'm annoyed about anything it's that there are still some that think the State Assembly should have upheld the ban with no reason to do so.

It's their property. See?

That takes it out of the domain of private property. You may find that the limits placed upon activities in publicly owned grounds are far less than those that private property owners can impose.

on what grounds would one ban a legal activity?

Where "one" is "a legislative body", I'd say "on the grounds that it feels like it". And I'd be right.

Where there is nothing in the constitution that governs what the legislative body in question may and may not do, it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do.

It could not ban the use of property over which it has jurisdiction based on an illegally discriminatory distinction, like race or sex or what have you.

But I've yet to see a constitution -- even in the USofA -- that specifies "ownership or non-ownership of firearms", or whatever the hell else distinction somebody is claiming in this case, to be an illegal ground of discrimination.

The legislature's decision is not, so far as I can tell, causing anyone to be deprived of his/her freedom to walk the streets or read the newspaper, or causing illegal searches and seizures to be conducted, or billeting troops in anybody's home, or denying anyone the vote or legal counsel or a fair trial.

And jesus h fucking christ on a stick, if you are really saying that the sale of goods for profit, where the goods do not consist of expressive content, is an activity protected by the first amendment to your constitution, well don't you ever be objecting if I decide that that's what protects pooping in the park.

And if anybody doesn't like *my* language, s/he can eat it for breakfast, just like that constitutionally-protected pizza.


Barring a legal show because one disagrees with it's content is a dangerous thing.

Not, I submit, as dangerous as the practice of persistently misrepresenting what one's adversaries do, say and believe.

Not that anybody would be doing that when it comes to representing the reasons why some members of the legislature decided as they did in this case. Nooooo.


(edited to correct my negligence in not remembering that the proposed measure was voted down this time around)

Where there is nothing in the constitution that governs what the legislative body in question may and may not do, it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do.

I suggest that you reread "our" constitution. As I recall there are a number of restrictions on state and local governments. I frankly have very little idea of what "your" constitution allows and prohibits. Learning what the Canadian government is up to is not at the top of my list of priorities.

Here's a little light reading to refesh your memory:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

I suggest that you reread "our" constitution.

I suggest you read MY post.

As I recall there are a number of restrictions on state and local governments.

As I recall, my post -- the part that you copied and pasted and then kinda pretended didn't exist -- said:

Where there is nothing in the constitution that governs what the legislative body in question may and may not do, it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do.

How the bleeding hell do you think legislative bodies MAKE LAWS?


I frankly have very little idea of what "your" constitution allows and prohibits.

I frankly would bet money that you have NO idea what my constitution allows and prohibits. But what's that got to do with anything?

*I* have an excellent idea of what *your* constitution allows and prohibits, and that's the one we're talking about, right?

What's with all these stray quotation marks like fishhooks in my eyes?


Learning what the Canadian government is up to is not at the top of my list of priorities.

Ah, the pride with which the ignorance is flaunted and preserved.

But anyway -- who asked you? Who was talking about the Canadian government?


Here's a little light reading to refesh your memory: ...

Ah yes ... the think I pull up from my bookmarks every time I see someone making moronic statements about the US Constitution ...

Was there, like, some point you were wanting to be making?

The U.S. Constitution places a number of restrictions on state governments. They may not "do whatever it takes a fancy to do". (There are those pesky little quotation marks again.) Thay may only pass laws that are allowed as states rights within the boundaries of the Constitution. There's also that pesky little part that does not allow states to pass laws that contravene those passed at the Federal level.

The U.S. Constitution places a number of restrictions on state governments. They may not "do whatever it takes a fancy to do."

I'm looking around for the person who said they may do that.


(There are those pesky little quotation marks again.)

Is that what you call the little fishhooks you like to use when you're pretending someone said something s/he didn't say?

In this case, the point is easily illustrated, since you are not simply quoting something out of its context, you are quoting it out of its sentence.

Where there is nothing in the constitution that governs what the legislative body in question may and may not do, it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do. <emphasis in the original>

So ... you're saying that your Constitution allows "states to pass laws that contravene those passed at the Federal level"??

C'mon, pretend you didn't say that.



(html fixed)

You wrote in post 67:
Where there is nothing in the constitution that governs what the legislative body in question may and may not do, it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do.

I wrote in post 106:
The U.S. Constitution places a number of restrictions on state governments.

You wrote in post 108:
So ... you're saying that your Constitution allows "states to pass laws that contravene those passed at the Federal level"??

That is not at all what I said. I believe that you were referring to a portion of my post 106 in which I stated:
There's also that pesky little part that does not allow states to pass laws that contravene those passed at the Federal level. The operative phrase in that sentence is does not allow.

From your post 108:
The U.S. Constitution places a number of restrictions on state governments. They may not "do whatever it takes a fancy to do."

I'm looking around for the person who said they may do that.

The portion in italics is directly from my post 106. The entire sentence in question is quoted above from your post 67. It was you who stated that state legislatures may do whatever they take a fancy to do.

Just who is using misdirection and disengenuous tactics here?

You wrote in post 108:
So ... you're saying that your Constitution allows "states to pass laws that contravene those passed at the Federal level"??
That is not at all what I said.

What? Who are you trying to kid?

Are you saying that those words inside those quotation marks weren't quoted directly from your post??

Are your constitutionally protected pants getting warm?

I believe that you were referring to a portion of my post 106 in which I stated:
There's also that pesky little part that does not allow states to pass laws that contravene those passed at the Federal level.
The operative phrase in that sentence is does not allow.

Nah. Operative phrase, shmoperative phrase. You said the words. It's really just silly to try to deny it.

Now, in the sentence I wrote:

Where there is nothing in the constitution that governs what the legislative body in question may and may not do, it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do.

I said the words "it may do whatever it takes a fancy to do". And everybody knows that the "operative phrase in that sentence" was:

WHERE THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT GOVERNS WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY IN QUESTION MAY AND MAY NOT DO

Everybody knows it, including you.

It was you who stated that state legislatures may do whatever they take a fancy to do.

It is you who is making an assertion that is grossly false -- and so patently false that you must think that there is someone reading what you're writing who is really very incredibly stupid, if you're actually thinking that anyone believes a word you're saying.

Just who is using misdirection and disengenuous tactics here?

That's one of those rhetorical questions, right?

I mean, is the answer not obvious to a blind horse?


(html improved)

Pathetic, isn't it?

Slackmaster (#32): "The presence of a few idiots in Nazi uniforms need not spoil a family outing."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=22105

if you can keep the Nazis to 1% of the group? :shrug: maybe 2%, I can be reasonable, every crowd needs a few, helps spice up the party. </sarcasm>

"I went to the craft show last weekend and there were only a few armed loonies dressed in Nazi uniforms."

or

"Interesting thing at the Paul Krugman booksigning. An armed loony dressed in a Nazi uniform got up and asked a question about tariffs."

</sarcasm>

"At last week's City Council meeting, citizens Edilith Eckart and Maureen McGeary told the council a gun show is an inappropriate use of the Community Center. McGeary displayed hate literature she said was available at a recent Eureka gun show, and said is commonly purveyed at such events.
City Councilmembers expressed varying degrees of dismay, both at the presence of a mass gun-selling event in Arcata and because they had not been informed of the event by staff, even though it had been booked nine months ago.
"If it had been the KKK and I heard about it that way, I wouldn't have been happy," said Mayor Connie Stewart. "So I'm not happy about this." "

http://www.arcataeye.com/top/000725top02.shtml

"If she doesn't know what to expect, a woman's trip to her first gun show can make her somewhat testy. This weekend's extravaganza at Cashman Center served as an eye-opening immersion in the world of freedom-loving, government-challenging, large-belt-buckle-wearing white men who love their guns.
Mask any surprise or disbelief. This will serve you particularly well when you're looking over some of the tables dotted with Swastika patches and white supremacist offerings, like The Turner Diaries and literature that denies the Holocaust. "

http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2003/05_15/news_upfront1.html

"If political tracts don't interest you, perhaps you might like a bumper sticker for your car or truck. The vendor offers a wide assortment, from a simple "Clinton Sucks" to "First Hillary, Then Gennifer, Now Us." As you might suspect, they are all of a piece. Though one bumper sticker proclaims that "An Armed Society is a Polite Society,"the other stickers give the lie to that hope. These are angry statements. Some are disturbingly misogynistic. "Wife and Dog Missing," reads one. "Reward for Dog." Another says, "I just got a gun for my wife. It's the best trade I ever made." Another bumper sticker which puts firearms over the female sex is one that declares, "My Wife Yes. My Dog Maybe. My Gun Never."
You can also get patriot music, most notably the works of Carl Klang, whose songs include "Watch out for Martial Law." It's actually a catchy tune. Some might prefer to buy one of the many videos offered for sale. One that catches my eye is Rock and Roll #3: Sexy Girls, Sexy Guns. In this video, according to its box, are "fourteen of the Sexiest Southern California beauties, scantily clad in string bikinis, firing some of the sexiest full auto machine guns ever produced." I am somewhat nonplused, and wonder what attraction near-naked women firing guns might hold for people, but since this is number three in a series it apparently sells well.
The booth also offers literature. One eye-catching novel features a photograph of a heavily equipped military figure, complete with gas mask and rifle, poking at a shapely but prostrate (and very scantily clad, might I add) Justice. What patriot's juices wouldn't get flowing with that? More common than novels are "practical" manuals that teach you the elements of sniping, landmines, booby traps, bombs and explosives, "dirty tricks," surveillance, creating false identities, and other dangerous practices. Seeing such books brings to my mind the unwelcome fact that Nichols and McVeigh of Oklahoma City infamy were regulars at gun shows. It makes you look at the people around you with a little more suspicion. Is there another McVeigh hidden here?
Leaving the tracts booth, I walk to another of the fairgrounds buildings. In this one I spy a representative of APRA, the American Pistol and Rifle Association, headquartered in Benton, Tennessee. A particularly forbidding looking gentleman operates this booth, perhaps appropriately. This organization is a gun-owners group that is, if one can believe it, to the right of the NRA. The NRA, after all, despite the increasingly erratic actions of leader Wayne La Pierre, disassociated itself from the neo-militia movement. But the APRA embraces the so-called "patriot" movement, which includes not only the militia types but also tax protestors, "sovereign citizens" (who believe they are not citizens of the United States but only of their state), and common law court activists. The APRA believes in a conspiracy by "tyrants" to subvert liberty and, like many such groups, subscribes to the New World Order conspiracies. "

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/gunshow.htm

I've never seen those things. Not once have I seen a Klan booth or a Klansman distributing literature. Not once have I seen anything or anyone promoting or supporting Nazism. I'm sure those things may have happened on the QT, but I never saw any of it.

Care to answer the question?

edited for typos

if I feel like sharing with the sort of person trying to spin away Nazis at gun shows....

Firsthand experiences usually don't hide behind that weak retreat.

Where's the spin? I've never stated that they weren't there. What I said was that I'd never seen them there (at any of the gun shows I've attended). I've never even stated that I didn't suspect they were there. Their presence, if indeed they were there, simply was not known to me.

"I've never stated that they weren't there. What I said was that I'd never seen them there (at any of the gun shows I've attended)."
And there's the spin....

I'm still waiting for an answer to the original question. You know; the one that asked if you'd ever actually been to a g gun show and seen those things whereof you speak.

Gonna ignore it some more or answer it?

Well, now we know why skippy doesn't see the Nazis as gun shows.....

""Yes to what?"
Posted by skippythwndrdog
I'm still waiting for an answer to the original question. You know; the one that asked if you'd ever actually been to a g gun show and seen those things whereof you speak."

What question could "Yes" possibly be the answer to? Geeze, call out Nancy Drew and the fucking Hardy Boys because it's obviously a mystery the wonder dog will never be able to solve in a million years.

Maybe you've got a link?

but since you asked so nicely for a link....

"Over the past few months, the Militia of Montana (MOM) published a series of articles in its newsletter under the banner "Israel Lie." The articles criticized Israel, and MOM referred to Jews as the "synagogue of Satan." The series of articles align with MOM founder John Trochmann’s Christian Identity beliefs. Christian Identity teaches that people of color are sub-human "mud people" and Jews are the literal children of Satan. Ronald Springel was handed one of the newsletters at a gun show in Spokane, Washington. Calling it "blatantly racist" and "anti-Semitic," Springel asked if the Spokane County Commission had policies to limit the distribution of this type of material at Spokane County Fairground events."

http://www.mhrn.org/news/flash35.html

You asked the question of me rhetorically in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x78465#78544
Then proceeded to offer links to information (and I use that term ver loosely) about gun shows supposedly attended by ppeople other than you.

I asked if you had ever attended a gun show in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x78465#78639

I also answered in the affirmative that I had been to many gun shows in that same thread.

Why the problem with answering a simple, straightforward question? Must you rely solely upon the experiences of others to form you opinions about gun shows? If that is the case, those opinions cannot truly be yours because they are formed using secondhand information.

I prefer to do my own thinking.

I sure as hell ain't going to waste much more time saying "Yes." Next to you Sgt. Schultz was one eagle-eyed son of a bitch....

"Must you rely solely upon the experiences of others to form you opinions about gun shows?"
Nope...but I can....because I'm not trying to pretend that gun shows don't attract the scum of the earth...

"I prefer to do my own thinking."
Funniest thing you've said yet.

I can see it now.

"Who broke the lamp?"

"Somebody."

Who?"

"Somebody else."

"Who else?"

"I dunno."

It had to have happened that way because you still can't give a trraightforward answer to a straightfoward question.

It's O.K. though. Your lack of an answer is sufficient in and of itself to verify that you've never attended a guns show, but prefer to visit them vicariously through others.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My wife has been reading the exchange and she would like an answer as well.

Have you ever been to a gun show? A simple "Yes, I have, or No, I haven't, " without links to others' opinions or quoting others will suffice.

One wonders why anybody as blind as skippy should be trusted with any sort of weapon....

"{i]My wife has been reading the exchange and she would like an answer as well."
My wife wonders why anybody is so desperately trying to pretend that gun shows aren't a gathering place for the scum of the earth....

edited to add: A weapon is only what you cause to be a weapon.

and my wife still wonders why anybody even pretending ot be a progressive democrat would be trying so diligently to pretend guin shows don't attract the racist vermin that they attract....

Gun shows are to freedoms what the horsehit you're so fond of referring to in your posts is to flowers. Horseshit helps the flowers to grow. Gun shows reaffirm 2nd amendment rights, in part.

Waiting for your answer. Have you ever been to a gun show?

"Gun shows reaffirm 2nd amendment rights, in part."
In other words, they're klan meetings for lying crazies.....

Am I going to have to come up with an award for argumentum ad uxorem to be competed over?

Argument by appeal to the wife ... hmm, only straight men and Canadian lesbian women will qualify ...

I'd bet even a Canadian lesbian with a glass eye could see the answer Skippy and his wife seem utterly unable to even guess at.

"BUt have you ever been to a gun show and seen thsese things firsthand?"

Cripes, what did it look like before?

Okay, I'm snorting and snuffling uncontrollably here, for real, so I have to thank you. But stop, you're killing me, really, I'll be laughing in my sleep tonight. But I still have to finish that stuff about Guy Lafleur and his spot of bother with the hunting czars back in 1983 ...

Who told them they had the right to decide what could and could not be bought and sold at their own fairgrounds? Dammit, the next thing these state assemblies'll do is start trying to pass laws! How dare they! RKBAers in other parts of the country object!

Fortunately, those "heroic" Republicans rode in to save the day.
/sarcasm off/

What, did our valiant RKBA "Democrats" forget which side they're on again?

where it said assembly rejects ban on gun sales.

So why are you guys crying about this, then? Why post it at all?

I think the Assembly made a good decision.

"This is a perfect example of gun control gone awry. Making people feel good, and addressing gun crime, are NOT the same things. All the ban would do is cost money/revenue that might otherwise be used for REAL preventitive measures."

And that was the only part of that post that wasn't quote or link.

Your side, not my side, posted this to complain about it. God only knows why. So your response turns out not to be true. Any chance of an apology?

No crying at all. This vote is a victory for reason and common sense.

Goju posted this to complain about it. No one expected you to disagree with him, but the point is that it's your side that's complaining, not ours. We are posting only in response to y'all. You are very deliberately avoiding the point.

How do you figure that?

:shrug:

Like the rest of you. Like I said in the first place. That's what this whole thread has been about. And again, you have every right to agree that they shouldn't have considered it, but then why pretend that we're the ones doing the complaining? We didn't post this item and not one of us has complained about anything in it. Come on, truthfulness is part of civil discourse. It isn't all about the wordy-durds.

Well thanks for clearing that up for everyone. Next time someone asks me what I think, Ill just refer them to you :eyes:

I posted it to point out how crazy the gun control agenda can be and to express a little shock/relief that CA still has some sensible people running the show. Doesnt quite qualify as a "complaint".

That quote was every word from you in the original post that wasn't a quote or a link. There wasn't anything in it about relief or about sensible people running the show in California. You were complaining about "gun control gone awry." Now you want to run away from your own post.

Ok, so you put thoughts in my head AND words in my mouth. Wow, you must be busy as hell speaking for both sides, heheeheee!

You quoted me correctly, and Im not running. If you werent able to discern what my position was on this article from what I originally posted, you are either in need of glasses or not being honest. Clearly you know me well enough now to know that I support gun rights over gun control. And clearly this article reflected a win for gun rights supporters. It kinda follows that I wouldnt be complaining about this ruling, doesnt it?

Here's a hint, I dont come down here to complain. I come down here to discuss gun control issues. But continue to characterize my post as "complaining", it makes you sound so sincere and forthright.

I know an insider there. The Crossroads of the West show, which hits four times per year, gets a discount because it's a good customer that generates a lot of concession sales.

This is a case of an extremist pressure group trying to get the state Assembly trying to override the wishes of local officials.

The staff don't make decisions like that, unless the owners choose to let them. Are you really trying to say that the state government has no right to decide what is bought and sold on its own property? Wal Mart and Cinemark can decide, but the State of California can't?

The state just decided NOT to ban the gun shows.

If YOU have something to say, I'll read it. I read your posts because I think you are a reasonable person. I know you are willing and able to be courteous and respectful like most of us.

http://www.crossroadsgunshows.com/generalinformation.htm

"PROHIBITED ITEMS:
1. Pornographic materials, drug paraphernalia, items
glorifying Nazism, items offensive to the general public.
2. Loaded firearms
3. Loose rounds of ammunition
4. Black Powder
5. Alcoholic beverages, unless sold by the concessionaire
6. Tobacco Products
7. No raffles

Hmmm, guess not (someones gonna be awful disappointed learning that).

Man, nothing like people who insist on arguing out of both sides of their mouths, depending on what debater's point they're trying to "prove" at the moment. Would it be too much to ask for a little simple honesty around here?

The promoters of the Gun Show has a no porno rule.
The Exotic Erotic Ball is an adults only event. The Gun Show allows minors (might be a rule regarding a certain age having to be accomponied by an adult).

So ordinary N azi crap is okay...but nothing glorifying the fascists?

(Wonder how many other events have to actually put that in their rules....The church will have a rummage sale next week..no items glorifying Nazism, please...)

Accusations of sales of items glorifying Nazism have continuted unabated despite your attempt to introduce some facts here.

I think they forgot what side they were pretending to be on...

About 10 of them showed up for a hearing at the agricultural district office in the administration building next to the racetrack. About 200 people took time off work and other duties to support the gun shows.

The extremists had their say, and the agriculture district board voted unanimously to keep the shows.

"Dave Roman is one of those separatists. On a recent Saturday afternoon, he and his 12-year-old son, Tyler, were examining an AK-47 assault rifle at a gun show on the Del Mar fairgrounds in southern California. Roman explained to his son that federal laws limit home use of this gun to a 10-shot magazine, rather than the 40-shot magazines used by armies around the world. "The government calls that an extended magazine, but it should be called a normal magazine. . . . You know," he says, turning to a reporter, "laws like these are a sign that something is really wrong with this country."
Roman is not a member of a militia group, and he said he lives a quiet suburban life, with a regular job for a major company. His son has not attended a "government school," as he called it, for two years. Instead, he and a group of his neighbours run Christian-based, "patriotic" classes for the kids. And Roman said he intends to stop paying income tax next year, since he believes, like a surprising number of Americans, that Washington has no authority to collect taxes."

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010616-02.html

And what a dan-dan-dandy show it is!

"But gun show opponents contend the shows sometimes promote violence and they point to three gun dealers who, authorities say, met at the Del Mar gun show in 1995 and forged a relationship that led to the sale of 80 assault rifles and 14 handguns that were then taken across the border.
Twenty-two of the rifles were later connected to drug-related killings and other crimes in Mexico, including the 1998 massacre of 19 people in Ensenada.
Del Mar resident Bud Emerson asked the Del Mar Fair Board two years ago to ban gun shows at the fairgrounds, but board members said the shows are protected by the First Amendment. Emerson said Monday's ruling would eliminate that excuse and he plans to request the ban again.
"There are people who die as a result of them sponsoring the gun show," Emerson said of officials who sanction the shows. "They have to take some responsibility for that and decide what they're going to do." "

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20020428-9999_1mi28guns.html

Why bring it up? What's the beef?

All is good. The white hats won one for a change.

Cone shaped or Stetsons?

I vote Stetson.

but we already knew that....

That's the only relevant cone shaped white hat I can think of.

The Irish gave it to them ( as they did with bagpipes) and the Scots have yet to get the joke.

which is so willing to spout gun rights that they'll even forego their knee-jerk racism to repeat NRA gibberish...

Are there stats on this, or are the anti-gunners just shooting at the hip? Anyone care to FORTAY on this? (LOL)(completely out of context too, I must admit) Anyone want to POLKA with me ? I DARE YOU

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/fuopr.htm

"Inmates serving time in state prisons during 1997 said they obtained their guns from the following sources in percentages:
Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2"

0.7% And yet, that mythical "gunshow" loophole continues to plague the gun-grabbers. Why is that?

Scare tactics and fostering fear is my guess.

"Can you scare me now?"



Wanna see something "really scary"?


http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/

The gun grabbers/antis wanted to stop gun show and lost. I think this calls for a toast "to all the gun grabbers congratulations on another defeat"

Tom

would mind if the religious fanatics came into a library and wanted to ban all books referencing the word "breast". Kind of a lame analogy, but the ends are the same. I can't believe people do not understand what public property is?

I can't believe people do not understand what public property is?

(Was that a question, or is that just a fishhook for my eyes at the end of the sentence?)


Now you hie yourself to some public property, and take a nice poop.

It's PUBLIC property! You may do whatever you want there!

light hearted by poking fun at myself. I just stated what exasperates me at times. There are some people who do not understand public property is for the public - not any special interest group demanding to impose their ideological restraints on the rest for use of that property.

There are some people who do not understand public property is for the public - not any special interest group demanding to impose their ideological restraints on the rest for use of that property.

So get on over to some public property and take a poop on it.

If you like, you may substitute:

- go on down to the middle of the busiest intersection in your municipality and do a rain dance
- take a stroll into your local municipal offices and remove your clothing
- stake out a nice spot in the neighbourhood park and set up a beer tent

Maybe you can come up with some ideas of your own. But surely you can see how any rule that prohibited you from doing any of those things would

- impose someone else's religion on you
- impose someone else's morality on you
- impose someone else's notions about food and drink on you

Right?

It is not for some special interest group to impose its ideological restraints on you and tell you how you may and may not use public property.

Right?


I was being a little light hearted by poking fun at myself.

I have to say I didn't notice anything that resembled that going on ... but I'm always glad to help out.

Well, I guess if there were no First Amendment, you might be able to support that analogy. As it is, however, it would be more like people coming to the library and complaining about people who talk too loudly. Which they do all the time here (complain, I mean). Then the library can decide whether to have rules about talking, or not (we don't). Either way, it's the library's call. Same way with food and drinks. Some libraries allow them, others don't. And yet it's all public property, where apparently you can't necessarily do just any damn thing you please.

Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2

If only we knew where the ones not purchased by the criminals in question from a retail store or gun show had come from before they got to that pawn shop, or friend or family member, of friendly local streetcorner gun dealer ...

Perhaps those so fond of flinging straw, and accusations of straw, could tell us about what kind of purchases some of them might have been.

Does "illegal source" cover "burglary", btw? I wouldn't think so. Odd how no criminals seem to have got their firearms by stealing them from someone else, and yet how many firearms are in fact stolen every year. I guess the criminals who steal them (people who steal things being kinda by definition criminals) just keep them as souvenirs, and don't use them for crimes.

If only we knew where the guns not purchased by the criminals in question from a retail store or gun show had come from ... we might find that some of them came from the homes of "law-abiding gun owners" ... or from gun shows ... or hell, from both, eh?



http://www.torontopoliceboard.on.ca/minutes/2004/040122pmm.pdf

Collateral Investigations Program

This voluntary program utilizes the information obtained from the FATE Program to conduct collateral investigations between the U.S. BATFE, the PWEU and other law enforcement agencies in Ontario to aggressively pursue the sources of crime guns arriving in Ontario from the United States. These investigations have identified several patterns and trends, which identify the methods of obtaining crime guns in the United States and smuggling them into Canada. The following are some recent trends:

- United States resident receives a licence as a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), lawfully acquires inexpensive firearms and then sells them for a large profit into the illicit crime gun market.
<gosh, do you suppose any of them acquired them at gun shows?>

- Cross border truckers acquire firearms in the United States and smuggle them into Canada.
<gosh, do you suppose any of them acquired them at gun shows?>

- Firearms are purchased at gun shows (secondary markets) in the United States and then smuggled into Canada.
<gosh, do you suppose that the only criminals who buy guns at gun shows -- or the only people who buy guns for criminals at gun shows -- are the ones smuggling them into Canada?>

- Canadian citizens obtain U.S. identification, purchase firearms and then smuggle them into Canada.

- STRAW purchases of firearms by U.S. residents, which are then smuggled into Canada.
<gosh, do you suppose any of them buy them at gun shows?>

A STRAW purchase occurs when a person such as a convicted felon or a non-resident of the United States or one who is not otherwise entitled to lawfully purchase a firearm in the United States enlists the aid of a third party to lawfully purchase a firearm. This is done in order to conceal the identity of the true purchaser. Firearms so purchased are often smuggled into Canada.

But damn it, I just have this feeling that firearms so purchased are often NOT smuggled into Canada ...


0.7% And yet, that mythical "gunshow" loophole continues to plague the gun-grabbers. Why is that?
Scare tactics and fostering fear is my guess.

I guess you could call that a "guess". Not an "educated guess" though, I'm afraid.

"Inmates serving time in state prisons during 1997 said...."
Hey, if you can't trust convicted criminals, who can you trust? Maybe pinheads who peddle crap glorifying nazism.

"Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2"
Gee, wonder where THOSE folks got those guns...do you suppose the gun fairy left them under a cabbage leaf?

"Scare tactics and fostering fear is my guess."
Yeah, and it's of a piece with the rest of the RKBA guesses....

I can't find any information that gun shows lead to murderous rampages in the town hosting the gun show. Wouldn't you think that the people who oppose these gun shows might bring with them some type of viable evidence showing that these shows are not beneficial to the safety of the public. "Please take my word" - is not much of anything.
edited for typo

and the bill that eased restrictions on the selling of guns by private citizens, but that does not show any direct correllation between community crimes and gun shows. I would assume you would believe the stats if they stated 25% of criminals reported they obtained their guns from gun shows - since this would fit into your assertations.

FYI, in case anyone isn't aware of California gun laws.

All transfers of modern firearms, new and used, must be conducted through a federally licensed gun dealer. Every sale requires a background check and 10-day wait no matter where it occurs.

Any attempt to play the gun show loophole card in a debate about a California gun show is disingenuous at best.

you just answer my question? If you don't want to answer or do not have one then, fine. "any attempt to play the gun show loophole card in a debate about Ca. gun show is disingenuous at best" ? What the hell does that mean.?? You are the one that provided the articles. I commented on your articles that you provided. Now, you are stating what the guidelines should be for discussing this topic based on the information YOU provided. PAHLEASE! I am now going to assume you just don't have an answer for what I asked. I am not going to argue about what parameters should be set to discuss this topic. Least of all from someone who thinks they are entitled to set them.

But others have tried to play the GSL card in this thread. It appeared to me, based on what you wrote, that you were replying to such an induhvidual.

I'll be happy to answer any question you have for me.

:D

I thought you were another person. MY APPOLOGIES TO YOU , I am sorry. my mistake.

I did not respond to your post correctly b/c
I thought you were another person.

Now if that ain't the very picture of ad personam argument.

The appropriate response is determined not by what was said, but by who said it. Hmm.

Now moi, I called a post on its apples-and-oranges content, even though it was slackmaster at whom the fruit was being thrown.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x78913#78993

I am the very model of a modern arbiter general.

You should see me after I've cooked up a summer feast of grilled pork ribs, baked beans, and a glorious fresh salad.

The food is pretty good too.

10 days, thats bad. I think as long as you pass a criminal background check you should be able to buy a rifle. 3 days or less would be ok (cool off period) but 10 days is ridiculous.
Tom

The supposed purpose of the wait is for the buyer to "cool off" and be less inclined to commit a crime of passion. But if he or she already owns one or more firearms, what's the point?

:shrug:

Anyway, we deal with it and it hasn't prevented anyone I know from buying a gun. If you make a purchase at a gun show, the gun is given to a dealer who lives in your area who acts as a transfer agent. Fee for that service is about $12-20.

Because of gun purchases, assault weapons registration, and job changes I've had my background checked more than 30 times in the last 25 years. The FBI has two (or is it three?) complete sets of my fingerprints. The California Department of Justice has a set of fingerprints and my thumb print is in the files of several gun stores.

If I ever turn to crime I'll have to buy disposable gloves by the case.

if anybody isn't aware of the dishonest wailing about Califronia firearm laws that goes on amongst our trigger happy friends.

"Any attempt to play the gun show loophole card in a debate about a California gun show is disingenuous at best."
And any attempt to pretend California's laws are the least stringent in the nation is horseshit...what else is new from the RKBAers?

Isn't that funny. I really screwed up there. in any case, my reply to your response is done previously. LOL

bui tthen I don't have a gun fetish...nor do I pimp for Republican legislative priorities...

Who is the BS pimp for bullshit? Not me nor you, we state our opinions and you can't handle that. I suggest you calm down before you start insulting people for no reason.