And so it begins

The Dude wrote: Again if you have nothing to hide why do background checks bother you?

Personally? It doesn't bother me. I buy most of my guns off [url=http://www.gunbroker.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]www.gunbroker.com[/url] and they are sent to my FFL where he administers a background check, I pay $30 for the transfer and take my gun home.

But background checks for what? When a father gives his 12 year old son a .22 rifle, would that require a background check? How about when a wife buys her husband a blackpowder hunting rifle, should he have to go down to CBI and pass a background check? Should the background check include what gun was bought and should the info be stored for 100 years in an easily accesed database?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Washington Post...

Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”

Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."

Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.

So since this alleged "boycott" of hunting in Colorado, there has been the following report:

Applications for Colorado big-game limited hunting licenses came in so fast Monday and Tuesday that the computer and credit-card processing systems crashed.
The deadline to apply for those licenses was Tuesday. Colorado Parks and Wildlife said high volume caused a link for online applications to crash for about three hours Monday night.


Read more: Procrastinating hunters crash Colorado application system at deadline - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2PPSzDe12
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Washington Post...

Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”

Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."

Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.

Correct, nothing to contradict the 40% number, but the study that got the 40% number is very out of date and the sample was very small.

A new study needs to be done since Colorado and other states have been eliminating the gunshow loophole.

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Background checks are not always accurate therefore denying law abiding citizens their constitutional rights without due process. Restraining orders don't always get removed from the system even after people go to court and are found not guilty. Some people are denied because they have a similar or same name as another person who committed a crime. There are many other reasons for otherwise law abiding citizens to be denied. I think one of the biggest reasons people are against it is because when someone is denied there is no reason given as to why they were denied.

Everyone knows that if a criminal wants a gun they will get a gun. I'll use the killing of the Director of the prisons as the latest example. The person who got the gun for the killer is being charged under a previous law for making a straw purchases but that doesn't help the dead guy now does it.

Others are against background checks because it infringes on their ability to sell their private property. Could you imagine the backlash if people had to have a background check to buy or sell a car?

Something the Dog Said wrote: So since this alleged "boycott" of hunting in Colorado, there has been the following report:

Applications for Colorado big-game limited hunting licenses came in so fast Monday and Tuesday that the computer and credit-card processing systems crashed.
The deadline to apply for those licenses was Tuesday. Colorado Parks and Wildlife said high volume caused a link for online applications to crash for about three hours Monday night.


Read more: Procrastinating hunters crash Colorado application system at deadline - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2PPSzDe12
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

After reading the article it looks like they won't know if there was or is an impact or not until the numbers are counted. This is case of overloaded servers from people waiting until very last minute to apply for a license.

And perhaps you can point me to the Colorado statute that says being turned down for a gun-purchase because of a failed background check is a crime requiring an arrest? I must have missed that one....

Source?.... (I'm still waiting...)

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Washington Post...

Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”

Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."

Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.

If you read the article, they certainly have facts to question the statistics. It's called statistical analysis. But then you would have to deal with the truth.

Lying on a 4473 is a felony, but people only tend to be arrested if they are commiting another felony, like trying to buy a gun on probation, or wanted on another felony.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Washington Post...

Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”

Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."

Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.

If you read the article, they certainly have facts to question the statistics. It's called statistical analysis. But then you would have to deal with the truth.

The truth is that according to the blog that you cited, the most reliable data available was that cited by the President. You (and the blog) can try to spin it, but no other data was cited. The blog criticized the analysis, but provided no better data.