Larry

Members
  • Content Count

    12,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

About Larry

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Where the Constitution grants rights to pregnant pigs, and denies them to homosexual humans

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Also, reading the proposed bill, it looks like one impression I had from this discussion was incorrect. What I thought was happening was that the Dem's bill required law enforcement to be notified of failed background checks, and the R amendment added ICE to the list. But I don't see any notification mentioned in the Dem bill at all. (Maybe it's already present in the law being modified. I wouldn't know about that.) So I read the proposed amendment. What the amendment says is that, if: 1) A dealer runs a background check. 2) And, after 3 days, the check hasn't come back. 3) Therefore, by law, the sale goes thrugh. 4) And then, after the transfer goes through, then the background check comes back negative Then the dealer is required to notify the local and state police, and the FBI, for the jurisdiction of the transfer and the jurisdiction of the recipient's address. And, if the recipient is illegal, ICE. I think I can approve of that ammendment. "Hey guys, I jjust sold a gun to this guy who's not supposed to have one, but it took you folks too long to say so." Edit: And, the links from the Congressman's web site contain typos that make them not work. Here's the links that I think he was trying to embed: Link to the bill. It's only 6 pages. Link to his proposed amendment. Only 1 page.
  2. Just checking. 1) The rule seems to refer to "transferring" a weapon. That sounds to me like transferring ownership. 2) However, I do think it aplies to loans, too, because the law seems to have a bunch of clauses stating cases in which a loan or use does not require a check. For example, while at a firing rangs, or while hunting, or while in the owner's presence. Looks to me like it only requires a check if you're "loaning" a weapon to somebody who is going to go take it somewhere else, without you.
  3. Which he didn't watch. And nobody else did, either. Because the ratings suck. That's why he knws nothing about it at all.
  4. C'mon. They didn't object when he did the same thing to the FBI. (In fact, they actively hunkered down and began working on building the false narrative.)
  5. You obviously haven't brought any other point to the discussion. No, I'm not going to analyze the whole thing, try to guess what you're trying to imply without actually saying, and then prepare discussion for every thing that I think you might be trying to hint at. If you've got an objection in the form of "this bill is bad because it criminalizes X, which I think shoulc be legal", make it.
  6. By "criminalize many routine actions", you mean "selling guns without a background check"? You know. Exactly what the bill is designed to do. You know. Excatly like every other law has done, for the entire history of civilization. It makes things illegal. But then, who said talking points have to make sense? "If only nobody objected to the amendment which my side attempted precisely because it was partisan, then there wouldn't have been an argument. (Until we found something that we could do that they would object to.)"
  7. Actually, I can certainly see the reasoning that if an illegal is trying to buy a gun, then maybe you should let ICE know. Although I could also see the notion that illegals should have the right to defend themselves, with a gun, too. That maybe society is better if the illegals do not become a demographic that's safe for people to prey on. (Now, as a more practical matter? We all now that not one single Republican will vote for the bill, with or without the amendment. It's likely that enough Dems will vote against it that it doesn't pass, with or without. The real reason the amendment was proposed was 1) In the hopes that it gets rejected, then it can be used as a talking point,. and 2) if it gets included, then it might cause a few D votes to become "no", and kill the bill that the R's don't want passed, in the first place.)
  8. Yeah, why would he want to go talk to the leaders of the countries that dominate the world's economies, right now? Maybe he could duck out to Germany for a MAGA rally.
  9. Larry

    The Impeachment Thread

    The other 22% want him dead.
  10. I'm certain that an escalation of the trade war will make things better.
  11. How many Dem candidates have cleared the bar that she says is too tough?
  12. He's going to give me a pony, too.
  13. There's more to it than that. This isn't Trump's usual ego or simple greed. He's feeling threatened.