egads.....a potential BsB nightmare

[BT]

present form is as is. not sure why you thought that needed further clarification.

[sirs]

I know how much of a stickler you are for clarifications.  Just making sure we're all clarified now.  Further Democrat legisative efforts to try and expand on it, and make it into what you're speculating, would be just that.....alternative legisation attempting to be superimposed on this, vs your use of Obamacare, which had folks reading what they wanted into the 2700+ page behemith piece of unconstitutional legislative garbage

[BT]

I know how much of a stickler you are for clarifications.  Just making sure we're all clarified now.  Further Democrat legisative efforts to try and expand on it, and make it into what you're speculating, would be just that.....alternative legisation attempting to be superimposed on this, vs your use of Obamacare, which had folks reading what they wanted into the 2700+ page behemith piece of unconstitutional legislative garbage

We aren't. My complaint would not be that further Democratic Legislative efforts would disfigure the bill. It is that Executive branch regulation in enforcing the bill opens the door for further federal intrusion, at least that is possible in the bills present form.

[sirs]

ANYTHING is possible.  It's just a breath of fresh air to actually see Federal legislation being proposed that ISN'T an effort to expand/extend the Federal Government's power & size, and even promotes increased freedom, in this case, law abiding CCW holders

But I'll throw you this bone....I'm confident that if Obama/Holder could figure something out to superimpose something on said legislation, to facilitate more gun control, they would.  2 Fundamental problems though.  He'd have to win reelection 1st, since he'd alienate far more folks then would come into his fold.  And he's likely to have 1 if not 2 opposition parties in congress that would never support any effort of theirs to further said speculative federal intrusion 

[sirs]

It looks as though people are exercising their Second Amendment rights in a big way, and I like it. Guns are big business, people are stocking up and one Las Vegas range owner is hiring female military veterans to teach others how to shoot.

But people aren’t just spending money shooting at the range, in fact, gun sales have recently skyrocketed as the November 2012 elections approach.

Alan Korwin, author of nine books on gun laws, including "Gun Laws of America," says gun owners are worried that the president, as a lame duck, will clamp down as never before on gun ownership.

Parsons says about 40 percent of Armory customers cite this fear as their reason for stocking up on guns and ammo now, before the election.

"Frenzy" is the word he uses to describe their buying. Dollar sales for the Armory are up 30 to 40 percent this quarter compared to last. Parsons thinks his store's performance is indicative of sales nationally, based on what he hears from dealers, suppliers and other store owners.

Gun maker Sturm, Ruger says that in the first quarter it received orders for more than 1 million firearms--so many that it has now had to stop taking orders. Says a notice on its website: "Despite the company's continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders." It expects to resume accepting orders, it says, at the end of May.

Now that is how you stimulate an economy

[Xavier_Onassis]

This is a bad thing.

The more people buy guns, the more irresponsible gun nuts will there be, armed and dangerous. The more careless people will leave their guns out where thieves can steal them and children can shoot one another with them.


If they would only associate with one another, it would not be all that bad, as it could resemble a self-cleaning oven. But alas, that is not the case.

[sirs]

Yea, people exercising their rights is nearly always a bad thing for coolaide drinking, Obamination-care-is-only-1000page leftists

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your sticks and stones
Will break no bones,
Because they are only digital.

The more idiots have guns the more gun nut idiocies we shall see.

[BSB]

Being part of our constitution doesn't make something a good thing or a bad thing. A specific amendment might have had the general good in mind, or might not have had the general good in mind. The founding fathers didn't have a crystal ball that would allow them to look at the long line of gun nuts outside the local firearms store in the year 2012.

I realize this is an educated view and therefor will pass over the heads of most on the right. But that's a cross we'll have to bear for a while.

BSB

[sirs]

Being part of our constitution doesn't make something a good thing or a bad thing.

It does make it a Constitutional RIGHT thing, regardless of your feelings, on the matter.  So endeth your lesson

Your sticks and stones
Will break no bones,
Because they are only digital.

The more idiots have guns the more gun nut idiocies we shall see.

Putting aside the irrelevency of whatever prompted the "sticks and stones" nonsense, there is no law against stupidity.  People who own guns, are not "gun nuts".  People that own many guns are not "gun nuts".  People who are irresponsible and wreckless, who happen to own a gun, could be considered a "gun nut".  But until THAT "gun nut" does something illegal, they have just as much right to owning their firearm, as you have in demeaning Bush & Cheney

[BSB]

"It does make it a Constitutional RIGHT thing"

I got a news flash for you. There are all sorts of laws defining who can buy, carry, and so forth, a firearm. Being a citizen of the USA only gives you the right to own a firearm if the local laws, and in this state the local police chief, allow for it.

People like me should be allowed. Reactionary gun nuts like you shouldn't be.


BSB, serving the Buddha

[Xavier_Onassis]

A rifle was essential in colonial America, as game was an important part of nearly everyone's diet.

If someone owns 200 cars he is a "car nut", If someone owns a trunkful of pancakes, he is a "pancake nut", and if someone owns 100 guns he is a "gun nut".

Not everyone with 100 guns is likely to run out and shoot suspicious Negroes, but the 100 guns will eventually be lost, sold or stolen, and the more guns are in circulation, the likelihood that someone will be shot with one of them increases. I once tutored this French Canadian sailor in English for several months. He showed me his gun collection once, He had over 100 of them, a trunkful of rifles and shotguns, a large suitcase full of pistols. None of them was registered. A month later, someone broke into his house and stole all of them. So even though he was a stable and normal person, the odds are that some of those guns surely were used in some dangerous and/or illegal way.
 
It may be a constitutional thing, but it is still not a good thing when many more guns are put into circulation.

[sirs]

"It does make it a Constitutional RIGHT thing"

I got a news flash for you. There are all sorts of laws defining who can buy, carry, and so forth, a firearm. Being a citizen of the USA only gives you the right to own a firearm if the local laws, and in this state the local police chief, allow for it.

That was kinda my point.....that in this country, we have a constitutional right to own a firearm, regardless or your feelings on the matter.  Nor did I say carry, as in a CCW.  And this reactionary is allowed, since I apparently can show pretty impressive restraint, never once having had to pull my weapon, in all the years I've had one, vs the idiocy of calling folks like me "gun nuts", because I dare support the Bill of Rights & Constitution

It may be a constitutional thing, but it is still not a good thing when many more guns are put into circulation.

Spoken like a true anti-constitutional socialist.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The constitution does not prevent more guns falling into the hands of violent morons when more guns are available.

In 1790, everyone needed guns. This is no longer true.

[sirs]

Irrelevent as to your opinion as to who needed them then vs now.  And again, there's no law against stupidty, so until you can either amend the Constitution, or impose a Communist/Facist regime, the Constitution trumps yours & B's feelings on the matter