Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
21. There is a lot of confusion on this issue, even among FFLs
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:50 AM
Dec 2012

For example, I sold a handgungun to a guy in another state and shipped to his FFL from my home. The FFL returned it because it did not originate from an FFL.

I had already called the BATFE in both Washington and in my state and in his state and they said this was not necessary. The recipient has to receive it from an FFL, but it does not have to originate from an FFL.

I really lost money on that deal as I had to pay overnight shipping twice.

Some what disingenuous Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #1
Read the article... sendero Dec 2012 #2
I read the article twice Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #3
I don't want to ban any sales.. sendero Dec 2012 #5
I don't object in theory Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #16
I don't subscribe.. sendero Dec 2012 #27
Re: prosecute the assholes that knowingly sell guns to people they shouldn't Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #28
Leaving aside "perfection," there is the Interstate Commerce Clause... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #41
Private citizens CANNOT legally access the BATF instant-background check system NickB79 Dec 2012 #30
This is not true. You can ship to someone IN YOUR STATE without a background check. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #6
Thanks for squaring me away on that . Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #17
There is a lot of confusion on this issue, even among FFLs Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #21
No, a "bunch of RW troll NRA/GOP Nugent-loving gun nutz." nt Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #42
Can you? quakerboy Dec 2012 #201
You are correct I was using craigslist as an example Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #204
A private seller still is required to ship via a dealer hack89 Dec 2012 #4
You still have to mail from FFL to FFL obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #202
This article is misleading. There is nothing special about what Armslist is doing. Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #7
didn't expect so many gun nuts on DU. Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #8
Perhaps 60-70% of Democrats support RKBA and DU is no different. Perhaps you jody Dec 2012 #11
Do you have a citation for that? primavera Dec 2012 #14
Browse DUs group on RKBA re support for RKBA. nt jody Dec 2012 #18
So, you don't have a citation? primavera Dec 2012 #20
I do but the topic has been discussed so often over the last 11 years that I've become weary of jody Dec 2012 #22
I can relate primavera Dec 2012 #23
We agree on those points. DoJ has the most credible data but even that depends on reports submitted jody Dec 2012 #24
And so much of it is unknowable primavera Dec 2012 #25
Agree and some DoJ reports that should trigger govt. programs are ignored, e.g. jody Dec 2012 #29
He is referring to a poll bongbong Dec 2012 #31
Yep. +1. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #38
Bullshit DainBramaged Dec 2012 #197
"Public Support for Second Amendment Remains Strong" US News & World Report jody Dec 2012 #210
Your continued use of Right wing talking points is noted by all DainBramaged Dec 2012 #212
Who knew?! Apparently public support of a position is a 'right wing talking point'! *snort* n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #213
Public support of gun control, who knew. DainBramaged Dec 2012 #217
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #218
Can you post another cropped picture to confirm your position? nt WinniSkipper Dec 2012 #214
Another Johnny come lately blurts out shit DainBramaged Dec 2012 #216
No, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat and I sypport our platform that says jody Dec 2012 #215
The same Yellow Dogs who wrecked havoc four years ago who are now out of office DainBramaged Dec 2012 #219
You really are in a state of bliss. nt jody Dec 2012 #220
You claimed Democrats support was 60-70%. So now you are engaged in bullshit. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #272
Factually wrong. The number is around 24%. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #271
We are everywhere ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #26
Simple, sell your guns through FFL if you really care who you sell it to. Hoyt Dec 2012 #53
Required in CA and some states, not in others ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #54
If gun culture would do the right thing, the laws would not matter. Hoyt Dec 2012 #56
Your view of the right thing and the views of others on what is the right thing diverge to the ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #58
Like I said, you need those lines because the gun culture will push it to satisfy their needs. Hoyt Dec 2012 #70
There are no lines, just laws ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #208
At least your bigotry is openly displayed. n/t PavePusher Dec 2012 #32
For your disappointment pleasure! Try this... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #44
What is a "gun nut"? obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #203
they're pretty easy to spot on DU shanti Dec 2012 #237
Yep, that's the billh58 Dec 2012 #9
Sad that you can't support Obama and the Democratic Party because they both support jody Dec 2012 #12
Please see post 14 primavera Dec 2012 #15
Please see post 18 jody Dec 2012 #19
Awwww... someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. -..__... Dec 2012 #13
Yep. Excellent post. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #36
You have been selling that smear for some time, bud... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #46
That wasn't a news article, that was a Lurks Often Dec 2012 #10
No factual evidence was presented as to whether this sale... PavePusher Dec 2012 #33
from the link provided on the news story booley Dec 2012 #34
Arrgh, my bad, I skimmed to fast and didn't see the link. PavePusher Dec 2012 #35
Needs to go through FFL - record keeping, oversight, responsibility, etc. Hoyt Dec 2012 #167
And there are ways to avoid that which have been discussed here numerous times. PavePusher Dec 2012 #205
If you really care when you sell a weapon, go through FFL. It's really that simple. Hoyt Dec 2012 #206
We'll eventually get meaningful gun control because the country is turning Blue, Democratic. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #37
You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right? X_Digger Dec 2012 #39
Baloney - there is a federal excise tax on ammo right now, as well as state taxes. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #43
Yes, I knew about the excise tax. Why would you think I didn't? X_Digger Dec 2012 #47
No, you didn't know about the tax, by your own admission: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #50
*cough* It hadn't been ruled a fundamental right until McDonald confirmed it. X_Digger Dec 2012 #51
Now comes the subject-changing: no on is talking about McDonald. We are talking about apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #60
No, you just ignored the part of my statement that you didn't like.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #62
No: you just ignore the fact that Congress has power to tax ammunition. When it was pointed out apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #65
Please point out me refuting that "Congress has no power to tax ammunition" X_Digger Dec 2012 #76
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #101
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #105
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #107
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #109
I've addressed the "right now" portion, repeatedly. (presumptively constitutional before challenge,) X_Digger Dec 2012 #96
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #100
I own all my words. Even those that are chopped into bits. X_Digger Dec 2012 #110
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--Full quote, un-chopped. Link: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #112
You can still edit post #50, btw.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #115
No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #116
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #118
... apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #123
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #165
You need to go back and reread what X-Digger said in post 37: petronius Dec 2012 #68
No, I don't; the simple fact of the matter is that apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #72
Then why were poll taxes ruled unconstitutional in some places before the 24th amendment? X_Digger Dec 2012 #77
Non responsive. We are talking about Congress's power to tax ammunition, not "poll" taxes. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #78
We're talking about congress' power to tax. Which you keep falling back on, as though it's absolute. X_Digger Dec 2012 #80
You are the one that said Congress could not tax ammo; I pointed out it could and does. You keep apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #83
Still waiting.. third time asking.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #85
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #88
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine. X_Digger Dec 2012 #90
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #94
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #106
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine. X_Digger Dec 2012 #121
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #125
... apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #126
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #129
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #132
What is this, you think you'll be right if you post last?!? LOL X_Digger Dec 2012 #135
And back to Projection we go. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #138
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #166
The present tax is hack89 Dec 2012 #211
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #222
They didn't affirm poll taxes hack89 Dec 2012 #224
The discussion is not about poll taxes; quit trying to change the subject. I am telling you again: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #225
I posted before the shooting was announced. You replied 3 hours later - after the shooting. hack89 Dec 2012 #226
Keep at it: I want all of DU to see this garbage. Again: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #227
So why did you resume the conversation? hack89 Dec 2012 #228
I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #229
Why in the face of such tragedy was my question that important that you couldn't ignore it? hack89 Dec 2012 #230
I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought "today, I'm not going apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #231
You answered after the shooting. You wanted to continue the conversation. hack89 Dec 2012 #233
I answered your unsolicited question; you chose to keep the argument going. And are continuing to do apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #235
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #238
You INITIATED the conversation; hell, my post above wasn't addressed to you! But keep apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #232
You had the first post after the shooting was announced. hack89 Dec 2012 #234
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #236
A question posted before the shooting was announced. hack89 Dec 2012 #240
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #239
Right now we are merely trading insults hack89 Dec 2012 #242
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to you, isn't it? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #245
You can always stop talking to me. Correct? hack89 Dec 2012 #248
Once again: I answered YOUR question; you could have used JUDGEMENT and thought apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #241
And you could have ignored me considering a massive tragedy just occurred hack89 Dec 2012 #244
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #247
But why were you even thinking about me at such a time? hack89 Dec 2012 #249
No one was "thinking about" you: I answered your unsolicited question. You chose at that time apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #252
So while watching coverage of a horrific tragedy hack89 Dec 2012 #255
NO: I answered your unsolicited question. You could have chosen decency and discretion, and simply apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #258
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #261
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #264
You INITIATED the conversation; my post above wasn't even addressed to you. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #243
Before the shooting. You came back 3 hours after the shooting to pick a fight. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #246
I "came back" and answered your unsolicited question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #250
But you didn't have to. hack89 Dec 2012 #251
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #253
But go right ahead and keep peddling those pro-NRA talking points: the rest of DU is getting apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #254
You being disingenuous is not a NRA talking point hack89 Dec 2012 #257
You wanting to continue an argument about taxes on ammo from the NRA point of view apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #259
No - you did. Who posted first after the shooting. nt hack89 Dec 2012 #265
I answered your unsolicited question; you are still here at it, peddling NRA talking points. n/t apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #266
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, on why he continues to apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #267
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. Too eager to keep the NRA talking points apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #268
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #260
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - it's all a game to our Gungeoneers, apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #262
"Now I am merely curious just how long I can string you along" - hack89, having fun on a tragic day. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #263
"this is my last post on the matter" <--hack89, Post #230. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #256
Keep slicing. Take "your" tax to court, and the court will throw it out... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #48
Wrong: YOU take the tax that is imposed on ammo RIGHT NOW to court, and try to apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #63
No onus on me, no desire to overturn present tax... Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #209
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #223
Keep wishing. Cause that's all it is.nc Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #269
So you say; but that day is coming. Get over it. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #270
Interesting, you didn't post a link to summary of the case - but, then, not really: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #49
Ooh, he can google.. but can he read? X_Digger Dec 2012 #52
And where's the part about how they can't tax ammunition? Oooooh, that's right: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #59
Discrimination was legal before it wasn't.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #61
We're not talking about "discrimination": we're talking about Congress's power to impose a tax apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #64
Still ignoring what I actually said? X_Digger Dec 2012 #67
I say Congress has the constitutional authority to tax ammo, you say they don't. Go get you a apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #71
Propose the law in your state legislature, let's see what the courts say X_Digger Dec 2012 #74
Again trying to change the subject; not gonna happen. Again, Congress has the power to tax apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #82
Mein Gott in Himmel! I have claimed no such thing. X_Digger Dec 2012 #84
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #87
No, you can't restrict a fundamental right by taxation *just because you don't like it. * also mine. X_Digger Dec 2012 #92
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #98
"Regardless of motive?" Now you've stepped out onto a ledge. X_Digger Dec 2012 #102
Congress could raise the tax on AMMO to whatever it wanted regardless of motive, and it would pass apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #104
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #164
So, what's stopping you? Get you a lawyer and sue the Feds! If you are so confident that apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #66
Why should I? I don't mind paying it. X_Digger Dec 2012 #69
Hey, you're the one who made the claim that such a tax is unconstitutional. It's not, of course: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #73
Let's try this one last time.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #75
Let's not. You claim Congress has no power to tax ammunition, Congress claims it does, and taxes apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #79
I have claimed no such thing. X_Digger Dec 2012 #81
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #86
Did you actually read the body? X_Digger Dec 2012 #89
Ahhh, the old "I didn't mean what I typed" defense. Sure. There's time to edit your post on DU3, apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #91
I won't rise to the bait.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #93
I plainly quoted your own words back to you un-edited and un-"choppped": there's still time to edit apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #95
You removed six words. Still time for you to edit. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #97
Nope: quoted you directly, YOUR words. Either own them or edit them. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #99
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #103
Here's a link showing you removing six words.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #108
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #111
Are you seriously saying you didn't read the body of the post you're regurgitating? X_Digger Dec 2012 #113
Trying to change the subject again: I would too, were I you. Own your words or edit them. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #114
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #117
All that dodging and back-pedaling tiring you out, eh? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #119
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #120
BTW, Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #122
Your recycling material.. I've already said I don't mind paying it.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #124
And right on cue, here comes the Projection again. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #128
I shouldn't be surprised you've ran out of material.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #131
You've been "out of material" since your opening reply was proven false. Link: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #134
*snort* Please keep regurgitating. n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #137
Still time to edit this post: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #130
*yawn* still time for you to edit this one.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #133
No need: unlike you, I stand by my words and posts. But keep dodging: the link ain't going away: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #136
This is tickling me to no end.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #139
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #140
*yawn* Because I *like* the PR Act. X_Digger Dec 2012 #141
No, it's because Congress has the right to tax ammo to its heart's content, and there's not a court apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #143
Telepsychic, are you? X_Digger Dec 2012 #146
So, if Congress did raise to $100 a box you'd be okay with it because of the "PR Act"? Great! apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #144
Have you stopped beating your wife? (my standard reply to loaded questions.) X_Digger Dec 2012 #147
Good: at least you now concede Congress CAN tax ammunition, after all those posts to the contrary apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #151
Take your imaginary victories anywhere you can. X_Digger Dec 2012 #154
Not a bit of it: you declared such taxes "unconstitutional" in this reply: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #160
I never claimed ammo taxes can't be levied.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #162
Yes, you did. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #168
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #171
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #175
Of course, if Congress raised it to a $100 a round you'd have to be "fine with it," too, or find apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #153
No, congress would have to justify such an increase to meet the burden of strict scrutiny. X_Digger Dec 2012 #155
No, it wouldn't. Congress could raise it to a MILLION dollars a round, and the courts apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #169
Also, this post, where X_Digger claims Congress can't tax ammo, even though Congress does: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #145
If I thought you seriously didn't understand, I'd feel sorry for you. X_Digger Dec 2012 #148
Uh-huh: now comes another dodge. Typical. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #149
Feel free to continue to misquote me. It only makes you look foolish. X_Digger Dec 2012 #150
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #152
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #157
Congress could raise the tax on ammo to whatever it wanted, and the courts would affirm it. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #158
I am quoting the complete sentence from your subject line; you can quit pretending anything is being apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #163
You initiated this entire sub-thread by claiming that my tax proposal was "unconstitutional": when apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #156
All laws / taxes / regs are constitutional until they aren't. That's not semantics, that's history. X_Digger Dec 2012 #159
So, is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the straight question. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #161
Now who's dodging? LOL! X_Digger Dec 2012 #170
And you dodge again. Answer the question put to you: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #173
All legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional until they're ruled as not. (procedure aside) X_Digger Dec 2012 #177
Dodge, dodge, dodge. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #198
BTW, you did declare such taxes "unconstitutional" (link below with money quote): apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #176
No, actually, I didn't declare such taxes unconstitutional.. just your proposal.. X_Digger Dec 2012 #179
My "proposal" is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed: my proposal would apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #182
Circular reasoning- by that *cough* logic, no law would ever be unconstitutional because it passed. X_Digger Dec 2012 #186
No, it is not "circular reasoning": I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" is. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #199
"is already constitutional because ammo is already taxed" -- therefore, any law that is implemented X_Digger Dec 2012 #207
NO, it is not: again, you simply do not grasp the concept of what it means to engage in "circular apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #221
Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #184
Up, or down? Do you need me to repeat the question?> apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #191
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #172
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #174
The law taxing ammo - no matter how high the rate was increased - would never be found apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #178
Congress's taxing power isn't absolute. What gives you the notion that it is? n/t X_Digger Dec 2012 #180
Is the Congressional tax on ammo constitutional, or not? Answer the question put to you. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #181
*yawn* X_Digger Dec 2012 #183
Quit dodging: is the tax on ammo constitutional, or nay? It's not a hard question, apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #185
It is constitutional until it isn't. X_Digger Dec 2012 #190
So, more semantics games. Dodge, dodge, dodge! Typical. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #193
"It is constitutional until it isn't" - Pretty much sums it up your bizarre pretzel-logic throughout apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #194
But this entire sub-thread was started by your insistence that such taxation was "unconstitutional": apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #187
I made no such insistence. X_Digger Dec 2012 #192
"You realize you're promoting an unconstitutional measure, right?" <--X_Digger's words. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #195
"And with that, I'm done." - You were done a long time ago, as the facts are on my side. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #196
Yay, or nay? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #189
Yes, or no? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #188
Here's the bottom line of this entire sub-thread, from stem to stern: apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #200
We certainly wouldn't want "undesirables" to be able to afford to buy dangerous weapons slackmaster Dec 2012 #40
I see now why you quietly self-deleted that reply where you promised to ignore my posts. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #45
Bullshit. I never promised I would ignore your posts. slackmaster Dec 2012 #55
Sure you did. n/t. apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #57
Everyone knows that you are a master baiter, and I'm not going to fall for it. slackmaster Dec 2012 #127
Good thing you self-deleted that post, ain't it? apocalypsehow Dec 2012 #142
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Armslist Lawsuit Seeks to...»Reply #21