Adolphus Busch resigns from NRA

Soulshiner wrote: So, when Obamacare is used as an excuse to raise the price of pizzas on consumers, that makes sense, but having gun stores make someone who wants to purchase a weapon pay for their own background check is ignorant?

Are you okay with Monsanto writing the GMO food laws then?

You're wrong and mischaracterizing what's in the bill about universal background checks. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the Federal Government from setting up a registry.

Here’s the Schu-Man-Too text:

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by

(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
( an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the FBI and BATFE).

Applying inclusio unius exclusio alterius, it IS permissible for entities other than the Attorney General, such as HHS or DHS, to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations.

Under Schu-Man-Too, Sebelius could consolidate and centralise gun records from the information she gathered from healthcare providers or insurance companies. DHS could create a registry using info received from states like Missouri. The Department of the Army could centralise firearm information on current and former military through the VA, questionnaires, etc. Then, HHS, DHS, the VA, etc, could compile all of their individual data into one registry.

But you already knew that... right?

Soulshiner wrote: So, when Obamacare is used as an excuse to raise the price of pizzas on consumers, that makes sense, but having gun stores make someone who wants to purchase a weapon pay for their own background check is ignorant?

Are you okay with Monsanto writing the GMO food laws then?

Starting 4/20 too soon?

It the NY State Legislature had let the industry set the fee for background checks instead of Bloomberg's minions, a $35 fee for a check would have been legal and worked.

GMO legislation? It would be nice to have someone in the industry help to write new regulations over some congressional staff member with a law degree and no experience.

RenegadeCJ wrote: So the definition of courage is attacking the constitution with feel good laws that do nothing, other than infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens?

The NRA is a very transparent member driven organization. They are doing exactly what we want them to do. Standing up for the 2nd amendment, which is a right...not a privilege.

None of the proposed gun-control laws infringe on the Second Amendment...

But feel free to continue...

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: So, when Obamacare is used as an excuse to raise the price of pizzas on consumers, that makes sense, but having gun stores make someone who wants to purchase a weapon pay for their own background check is ignorant?

Are you okay with Monsanto writing the GMO food laws then?

You're wrong and mischaracterizing what's in the bill about universal background checks. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the Federal Government from setting up a registry.

Here’s the Schu-Man-Too text:

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by

(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
( an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the FBI and BATFE).

Applying inclusio unius exclusio alterius, it IS permissible for entities other than the Attorney General, such as HHS or DHS, to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations.

Under Schu-Man-Too, Sebelius could consolidate and centralise gun records from the information she gathered from healthcare providers or insurance companies. DHS could create a registry using info received from states like Missouri. The Department of the Army could centralise firearm information on current and former military through the VA, questionnaires, etc. Then, HHS, DHS, the VA, etc, could compile all of their individual data into one registry.

But you already knew that... right?

When you cut and paste from other sources, it is a violation of US copyright laws to do so without proper attribution. But you already knew that . . . right?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: So, when Obamacare is used as an excuse to raise the price of pizzas on consumers, that makes sense, but having gun stores make someone who wants to purchase a weapon pay for their own background check is ignorant?

Are you okay with Monsanto writing the GMO food laws then?

You're wrong and mischaracterizing what's in the bill about universal background checks. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the Federal Government from setting up a registry.

Here’s the Schu-Man-Too text:

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by

(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
( an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the FBI and BATFE).

Applying inclusio unius exclusio alterius, it IS permissible for entities other than the Attorney General, such as HHS or DHS, to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations.

Under Schu-Man-Too, Sebelius could consolidate and centralise gun records from the information she gathered from healthcare providers or insurance companies. DHS could create a registry using info received from states like Missouri. The Department of the Army could centralise firearm information on current and former military through the VA, questionnaires, etc. Then, HHS, DHS, the VA, etc, could compile all of their individual data into one registry.

But you already knew that... right?

When you cut and paste from other sources, it is a violation of US copyright laws to do so without proper attribution. But you already knew that . . . right?

Nice deflection. Don't address the comment at all. It's impossible to link directly to this comment... search Hot Air. Now... your opinion opinion on the comment?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: So, when Obamacare is used as an excuse to raise the price of pizzas on consumers, that makes sense, but having gun stores make someone who wants to purchase a weapon pay for their own background check is ignorant?

Are you okay with Monsanto writing the GMO food laws then?

You're wrong and mischaracterizing what's in the bill about universal background checks. There is nothing in this bill that prevents the Federal Government from setting up a registry.

Here’s the Schu-Man-Too text:

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by

(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
( an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the FBI and BATFE).

Applying inclusio unius exclusio alterius, it IS permissible for entities other than the Attorney General, such as HHS or DHS, to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations.

Under Schu-Man-Too, Sebelius could consolidate and centralise gun records from the information she gathered from healthcare providers or insurance companies. DHS could create a registry using info received from states like Missouri. The Department of the Army could centralise firearm information on current and former military through the VA, questionnaires, etc. Then, HHS, DHS, the VA, etc, could compile all of their individual data into one registry.

But you already knew that... right?

When you cut and paste from other sources, it is a violation of US copyright laws to do so without proper attribution. But you already knew that . . . right?

Nice deflection. Don't address the comment at all. It's impossible to link directly to this comment... search Hot Air. Now... your opinion opinion on the comment?

My opinion on the comment is that it is an illegal action on your part and a violation of the TOS of this forum in order to pass off the intellectual property and hard work of another as your own personal work in order to seem as though you are capable of intelligent thought and research.

see section 5 of the sites TOS. To wit:
5. For newsletters, web pages, news articles, blog posts or other copyrighted content to be inserted into posts: each source has different rules so please check Terms of Service of a source before re-posting to make sure they allow it, how much can be copied, whether pictures can be copied, etc. Quote only the minimum amount of content that gets your specific point across - a reader should have to click through to read the rest to understand. This generally means less than 25% of the total length of the article; although 10% or less is preferred. To be safe, we recommend one paragraph (4 sentences). Posting a link to the content/source is required per the Fair Use Doctrine.

No opinion... I thought so. Evidently this was something the dog didn't say. I never claimed it was my own. Are you seeing things? You're lack of commenting on the comment says boatloads.

lol When you don't have the facts, attack the poster, right?

Opinion was expressed that you are a thief of intellectual property of others, a violator the TOS of this site, and exposed the ownership of this site to civil and criminal liability.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Opinion was expressed that you are a thief of intellectual property of others, a violator the TOS of this site, and exposed the ownership of this site to civil and criminal liability.

Take it up with the management.