[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
> I know that in California over 50% of the 15-day > "background checks" to purchase a handgun are > never done, because the infrastructure does not > support it. For anyone who submits out of state > addresses, they cannot possibly get information > from the out-of-state police departments within > 15 days, so they just don't bother. > > And *none* of the background checks would discover > that this person was writing prolifically to the > Internet urging people to kill the Clintons and > Obama. That is not part of the *scope* of the > background check, which looks only for previous > felonies and misdemeanors. > ** The FBI claims that background checks are instantaneous: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics.htm
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelsonriddle2001" > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex wrote: > > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Take the case of our recent spammer, "Miryam > > > > Shoshan Yosef"... > > > > > > > If she is a U.S. citizen, her 'gun rights' are > > > specified in the U.S. Constitution, Second > > > Amendment, which has been consistently upheld > > > by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > > > > > You and Judy can call citizens who exercise > > > their civil rights 'gun nuts' if you want to, > > > but it doesn't do your argument for disarming > > > the people any good. In fact it makes you two > > > look like extremists, not the othe way around. > snip,, > > IMO the "gun problem" in the US is unsolveable. > Nothing can be done about the extraordinary number > of guns already out there, and so any "patchwork > quilt" attempt to limit the number of new guns > will be ineffective at reducing the number of > them. The larger problem is that Americans believe > they NEED guns to feel safe. People in other > countries don't. What's wrong with America that > its people do? > Had you noticed the peoples reaction to having their guns confiscated in England for example? It looked to me like a lot of them were happier with than without. And, I hope you are right about the issue being an unsolvable problem here as there are some considerable forces trying to solve the problem. Their major problem is setting up a dictatorship with an armed citizenry.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelsonriddle2001" > wrote: > > On another point, if you need something to contemplate, > > maybe the new vaccine in question will be what causes the > > flu. > > I *have* stated a position on this. :-) > > I think rushing a vaccine to market just to pacify > a panicky public is a classically Bad Idea. Barry's going to stick with his "panicky public" fantasy no matter what, regardless of the evidence against it. He and Nelson, with his own fantasy about the flu vaccine *causing* the flu, are quite a pair. At least Nelson's fantasy, insanely paranoid as it is, hasn't yet been shown to be WRONG. I mean, other than the fact that there have been millions of documented swine flu cases long before the vaccine was even *created*. It's quite amusing to read such fantasies on a forum that repeatedly mocks the similarly nutty fantasies, such as "pulling the plug on Grandma," of the right-wing town hall shouters.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nelsonriddle2001" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex wrote: > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Take the case of our recent spammer, "Miryam > > > Shoshan Yosef"... > > > > > If she is a U.S. citizen, her 'gun rights' are > > specified in the U.S. Constitution, Second > > Amendment, which has been consistently upheld > > by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > > > You and Judy can call citizens who exercise > > their civil rights 'gun nuts' if you want to, > > but it doesn't do your argument for disarming > > the people any good. In fact it makes you two > > look like extremists, not the othe way around. > > > > But what is really troubling is not that she > > might have a gun in her possesion, but that > > you, living in Spain, would even care if she > > did. You sound really scared, Barry. > > > > Firearms laws in Spain are very restrictive, > > you probabkly already knew that. What I'd be > > worried about, if I lived over there, is the > > local terrorists. From what I've read, they're > > not very fond of people coming over there and > > sponging off the government. > > I would think that a background check on her should disqualify her. > Here, everyone is checked before getting a permit to purchase > which doesn't take long. I know that in California over 50% of the 15-day "background checks" to purchase a handgun are never done, because the infrastructure does not support it. For anyone who submits out of state addresses, they cannot possibly get information from the out-of-state police departments within 15 days, so they just don't bother. And *none* of the background checks would discover that this person was writing prolifically to the Internet urging people to kill the Clintons and Obama. That is not part of the *scope* of the background check, which looks only for previous felonies and misdemeanors. So, if this person were real and living in the US (neither of which is true, as far as I can tell), your current "background checks" have just put a gun into the hands of a person who writes over and over and over and over to the Internet *how* she plans to use it. I have not stated any position on this, BTW. I'm just pointing out the problems with your position. > On another point, if you need something to contemplate, > maybe the new vaccine in question will be what causes the > flu. I *have* stated a position on this. :-) I think rushing a vaccine to market just to pacify a panicky public is a classically Bad Idea. IMO the "gun problem" in the US is unsolveable. Nothing can be done about the extraordinary number of guns already out there, and so any "patchwork quilt" attempt to limit the number of new guns will be ineffective at reducing the number of them. The larger problem is that Americans believe they NEED guns to feel safe. People in other countries don't. What's wrong with America that its people do?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > Take the case of our recent spammer, "Miryam > > Shoshan Yosef"... > > > If she is a U.S. citizen, her 'gun rights' are > specified in the U.S. Constitution, Second > Amendment, which has been consistently upheld > by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > You and Judy can call citizens who exercise > their civil rights 'gun nuts' if you want to, > but it doesn't do your argument for disarming > the people any good. In fact it makes you two > look like extremists, not the othe way around. > > But what is really troubling is not that she > might have a gun in her possesion, but that > you, living in Spain, would even care if she > did. You sound really scared, Barry. > > Firearms laws in Spain are very restrictive, > you probabkly already knew that. What I'd be > worried about, if I lived over there, is the > local terrorists. From what I've read, they're > not very fond of people coming over there and > sponging off the government. > I would think that a background check on her should disqualify her. Here, everyone is checked before getting a permit to purchase which doesn't take long. On another point, if you need something to contemplate, maybe the new vaccine in question will be what causes the flu.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex wrote: > You and Judy can call citizens who exercise > their civil rights 'gun nuts' if you want to, I don't call citizens who exercise their civil rights "gun nuts." > but it doesn't do your argument for disarming > the people any good. I've never made such an argument.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > Take the case of our recent spammer, "Miryam > > Shoshan Yosef"... > > > If she is a U.S. citizen, her 'gun rights' are > specified in the U.S. Constitution, Second > Amendment, which has been consistently upheld > by the U.S. Supreme Court. > > You and Judy can call citizens who exercise > their civil rights 'gun nuts' if you want to, > but it doesn't do your argument for disarming > the people any good. In fact it makes you two > look like extremists, not the othe way around. > > But what is really troubling is not that she > might have a gun in her possesion, but that > you, living in Spain, would even care if she > did. You sound really scared, Barry. > > Firearms laws in Spain are very restrictive, > you probabkly already knew that. What I'd be > worried about, if I lived over there, is the > local terrorists. From what I've read, they're > not very fond of people coming over there and > sponging off the government. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: A question for Nelson Riddle (and others, if they want)
TurquoiseB wrote: > Take the case of our recent spammer, "Miryam > Shoshan Yosef"... > If she is a U.S. citizen, her 'gun rights' are specified in the U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment, which has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. You and Judy can call citizens who exercise their civil rights 'gun nuts' if you want to, but it doesn't do your argument for disarming the people any good. In fact it makes you two look like extremists, not the othe way around. But what is really troubling is not that she might have a gun in her possesion, but that you, living in Spain, would even care if she did. You sound really scared, Barry. Firearms laws in Spain are very restrictive, you probabkly already knew that. What I'd be worried about, if I lived over there, is the local terrorists. From what I've read, they're not very fond of people coming over there and sponging off the government.
