Quote of the Day: And I Have a Bridge I’d Like to Sell You Edition

“These negotiations are challenging, as you’d expect on an issue as complicated as guns, but all of the senators involved are approaching this in good faith.” – Senator Chuck Schumer in Congress Set to Consider Tighter Rules on Firearms [via nytimes.com]

27 Responses to Quote of the Day: And I Have a Bridge I’d Like to Sell You Edition

  1. avatarJohn Moses says:

    chuck schumer is an evil excuse for a man. We must rid our senate of clowns like this or we will never know liberty again. I know, we will never know liberty again.

  2. avatarThomas Paine says:

    “While Mr. Schumer and Mr. Coburn remain tantalizingly close, Senate aides say, their talks have stalled over a provision that would require records to be kept of private gun sales.”

    -if all gun sales need to go thru an FFL, then aren’t records are kept anyway? This sentence makes no sense, unless they’ll allow citizens to use NICS.

  3. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    The bradys will eat that up of course, gun owners? not so much. I want to start hearing the words “reasonable & in good faith” with regard to dem pet wants, Randy

  4. avatarAndrew says:

    This may not be popular here, but I support universal background checks. They will allow for transfers to family members and those with ccw without a check. The details of how someone like me can sell to you without either one of us having an FFL is what I’m waiting to see. Do we have to go through an FFL(and pay something) or can we have access to NICS? If we do have access to NICS, how can we guarantee that this won’t be abused for non firearm purchases? The other linchpin is how long these records are maintained, if maintained at all. I do not support a registry but I don’t see how this will truly work without one. For those of you saying this violates the Brady bill, if you pass a new law you can change an existing one so that is a moot. I do not consider passing a background check to be an infringement on my rights as I have already done so and will continue to do so in the future.

    • avatarThomas Paine says:

      ok, so it’s cool when they ban certain firearms within the next decade, and SWAT shows up at your door to pick them up? i’m cool with that, i guess. as long as they bring donuts. and give my kids those nifty police baseball cards.

      • avatarAndrew says:

        That is why I said I do NOT support a registry. And if SWAT officers start kicking in doors of people trying to confiscate ‘illegal’ firearms based on a future ban, then this country is lost and laws won’t matter anymore.

        • avatarSome Guy says:

          Not lost at all! Remember Lexington and Concord were the beginning of the Revolution, not the end.

        • avatarTama Paine says:

          Andrew, with the state of highly automated, globally accessible, meta-linked computerized data centers such as the NSA’s in Utah, there is no way to say you support government taking records but not keeping them.

          They will be kept somewhere. There will be a backup. A backup of a backup. A restore of a backup of a copy of a restore.

          In the digital data center age, there is no such thing as data that is not retained.

          Get that through your head, please. Then please rethink what you are saying. For you to say, “well, if my idea doesn’t work, then everything has gone too far to care about,” is exactly the kind of thinking we have to resist.

      • avatarThomas Paine says:

        my bad. I guess i’ve been hearing too many uninformed gun owners talk about how universal checks wouldn’t be a bad thing. Apologies.

    • avatarMikeinid says:

      If the stated use of a universal background check system is to prevent criminal access, and criminals won’t use it or need to use it, what is the system’s purpose? Defacto registry for future confiscation. If the government has info, they will abuse it. Look at what goes on with DMV records, and what ATF has done. Now imagine what they haven’t been caught at. No matter the intentions of the authors of these laws, government eventually abuses the system. It is what bureaucracies do. As an aside, I don’t trust the intentions of our senators. The whole arrangement is getting to close to nobility and serfs for my liking.
      I understand that you want a way to sell to a stranger and ensure they are legally able to purchase a weapon, but there are so many ways to circumvent the process that you personally won’t ever see the criminal. You will see a straw purchaser if this is enacted. What if they hold you responsible for selling to a straw purchaser? In reality this system is designed to make private sales very onerous. You will create a record. You will pay a fee. You may open yourself to unforeseeable legal liability. It will be illegal to sell to a trusted friend without using it.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      This is the way it is in California already, has been for years. Some FFLS set up at gunshows to do nothing but ptp transfers–at $75-$90 per. Same thing for internet sales–by the time you tack on transfer fee, any savings are pretty much out the door. IN fact, I was looking at a gun on Bud’s that wsa a good price, but after adding in the transfer fees, the cost of the gun was $20 higher than the local ffl had listed the same gun when he had it in stock.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      You are correct. It’s NOT popular, and you fail to understand the concept of creeping encroachment. Do you REALLY think they’ll come a point when they decide to STOP? You are a FOOL if you do.

  5. avatarjoe says:

    I support universal background checks on kitchen knives, chainsaws, gasoline…. why not if we are going to do background checks on one setof TOOLS? Let us not forget what guns truly are… tools, nothing more… why do we need any background checks at all? Do they do anything other than increase the price of a gun by giving us a false sense of security?

  6. avatarRKflorida says:

    Shumer is a lying pig.

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      You are so right! The loathsome Chucky Schumer personifies what we are talking about. This sniveling weasel is exactly the type of politician the Founding Fathers dreaded. Lying, conniving and weaving his webs, he has managed to lead the “urban mob” into happy peonage by convincing them that he cares for their welfare. His only principle being a furtherance of collectivism led by the new “Illuminati”

      • avatarWilliam says:

        It’s “collectivism” for THEM, not the rest of us. We “share” what we have with them (THEY WANT IT ALL), and we get misery and servitude in the exchange.

        • avatarSome Guy says:

          With all due respect, not quite. Their goal is a comfy, “free range” prison yard. As long as you sit down, shut up and behave yourself you’ll be taken care of – but not a free citizen.

    • avatargemalo says:

      +1,000

  7. avatarGlennF says:

    The underlying LIES of these “negotiations” & the aspect that makes my blood boil even more is in that little phrase ” Senate aides say”. In our “modern” political system, MUCH if not MOST of negotiating is done by AIDES; non-elected gophers w/an agenda all their own. It’s why we get 2000+ page bills that no one has read or has to read “after they sign it”. There is an illusion here that these treasonous Congressmen are all encamped in a room hammering out their collusion, when in fact, they are sitting in their easy chairs sipping their adult beverage of choice while plotting the next Trillion $$$ they want to borrow from China to pay for it. And, ANY & ALL that collude w/Schumer & Feinstein are guilty of treason against the Constitution. Yeah, that would be YOU, John McCain & the rest of these “elected Representatives”.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      ACtually, most of these elected representatives are out running around raising money for their next election cycle. That’s why so many miss so many votes. It’s ridiculous when these guys spend much if not most of their time running for reelection and not doing the job they were elected to do.

  8. avatarRob says:

    Incitatus comes to mind.

    He was Caligula’s favorite horse, and he proposed to make him a consul in the Roman Senate.

    It was either a sign of Caligula’s madness.

    Or it was a sign of Caligula’s contempt for the impotent Roman Senate, effectively saying: “This horse makes more sense to me than this group of idiots!”

    Either way works for me.

    • avatarJay Dunn says:

      The Roman emperor Gaius (Caligula=Bootsie in latin) wasn’t all that crazy. Remember, the history books were largely written by men of the senatorial class–the folks to whom he was showing his contempt.

  9. avatarLance says:

    Keep calling your reps and senators and say no to any Gun Bans!!!!!

    • avatarWilliam says:

      You DO know you don’t actually TALK to them, right, but a recording, usually? Has a voice recording ever come to your assistance? NO? That’s why they exist.

  10. avatarbontai Joe says:

    Living near the mass media of NY has allowed me to suffer thru YEARS of Mr. Shumer’s lies, arrogance and pompousness. DELETED I have absolutely no idea how he gets re-elected, and how he went from being a bad congressman to being an even worse senator. The crap that comes out of his mouth on a daily basis, is astounding in showcasing his complete disconnect with society. I hate the guy intensely, but I can’t vote against him as I live in PA, and yet his crap has a direct influence on me. The best I can do is contribute money to his opponent each election cycle. Trust me, I’ll be throwing a LARGE party the day he looses an election, or falls down a flight of stairs or gets hit by a meteorite, or speeding bus.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.