On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Well right now today:
>
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>
> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
> 'infringe'.

Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty buying
fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the disgusting
vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams tank on the
road! I want one for my _safety_!

All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!

Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew pew"
small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to _finally_
guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:36:45 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/17/2024 1:58 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 3:05:02?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2024 5:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:45:24 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/16/2024 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>>>>> The people aren't buying that...
>>>>>> https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating
>>>>
>>>>> Even John Kerry jumped ship. The remaining rats are at the
>>>>> rail...
>>>>
>>>> Kerry is 80 years old. He plans to work on the Biden re-election
>>>> campaign:
>>>> <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/13/john-kerry-biden-administration-re-election-campaign>
>>>> That isn't jumping ship.
>>>>
>>> I didn't know that, thanks.
>>> Made for each other...
>
>> Do you suppose that is why Biden doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning?
>
>You, Sir, seem to be uninformed or naive:
>
>https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/2140-those-who-vote-decide-nothing-those-who-count-the-vote

I was raised in Illinois, but fortunately, I left as a teenager.
Unfortunately, I have relatives still living in Illinois. They're not
particularly happy about it.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:55:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> Well right now today:
>>
>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>
>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>> 'infringe'.
>
>Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty buying
>fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the disgusting
>vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams tank on the
>road! I want one for my _safety_!
>
>All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>
>Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew pew"
>small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to _finally_
>guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!

No, but some folks are all upset about little "pew pew pew"
small caliber AR15s.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:50:31 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 1/17/2024 5:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I do, frequently. Unfortunately all the local shops around me have gone
> > "corporate", My in-town shop is now exclusive to Cannondale and their
> > associated brands, and the last shop that sponsored my team became a
> > Trek store. That means I can't find things like a derailleur clamp for a
> > braze-on derailleur at either shop any more, they would have to order
> > them from Problem Solvers just like I do (yes, I recently experienced
> > that very incident). Even accessories like bar tape are restricted by
> > their corporate branding. At least I'm not forced to go because I've
> > fucked something up.
> Remember in 2021 when Tom had a fit that his local bike shop was
> following the law regarding face coverings and he stormed out and then
> boasted about how he ordered online? See
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7MGs55w41Qc/m/UGLx-2jPBgAJ :" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7MGs55w41Qc/m/UGLx-2jPBgAJ>:
>
> "So I came home and ordered the tires and tubes on-line for a fraction
> of what it would have cost me in their store and paid $140 or so."
>
> I sent an e-mail to the founder of the bike store, thanking him for
> being diligent about stopping the spread of Covid:
>
> "Kudo's to Mikes Bikes for enforcing common-sense Covid-prevention
> measures. Fortunately Tom just left without incident. Other covidiot
> anti-maskers have been physically removed from stores like Walmart.
> <https://youtu.be/f456x1Zvz3U>
> <https://twitter.com/i/status/1292306240287248384>"
>
> I got a reply and had an e-mail exchange:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Martin
> Sep 4, 2021, 4:28 AM
> I’m not familiar with this incident, and the attachment didn’t come
> through. Can you send it again, or a link to the post? -Ken -- Ken
> Martin Founder & CEO Mike
>
> ---
>
> Steven Scharf
> Sep 4, 2021, 4:32 AM
> to Ken
>
> Here is a link to the thread on rec.bicycles.tech:
> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7MGs55w41Qc
>
> The person that started this was upset that an employee at your
> Pleasanton store told him that he had to wear a mask. That person has a
> history of being a jerk.
>
> ---
>
> Ken Martin
> Sep 4, 2021, 4:36 AM
> to me
>
> Thank you. Wow, he really does sound like a jerk. Thanks for sticking
> up for us!!
>
> -Ken
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
Your sticking up for Mike's Bikes doesn't seem to have helped them. They are presently in financial trouble no doubt from trying to enforce Fauci's mania. Would you like to meet somewhere to discuss it?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 14:16:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 8:50:31?AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 5:20 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > I do, frequently. Unfortunately all the local shops around me have gone
>> > "corporate", My in-town shop is now exclusive to Cannondale and their
>> > associated brands, and the last shop that sponsored my team became a
>> > Trek store. That means I can't find things like a derailleur clamp for a
>> > braze-on derailleur at either shop any more, they would have to order
>> > them from Problem Solvers just like I do (yes, I recently experienced
>> > that very incident). Even accessories like bar tape are restricted by
>> > their corporate branding. At least I'm not forced to go because I've
>> > fucked something up.
>> Remember in 2021 when Tom had a fit that his local bike shop was
>> following the law regarding face coverings and he stormed out and then
>> boasted about how he ordered online? See
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7MGs55w41Qc/m/UGLx-2jPBgAJ :" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7MGs55w41Qc/m/UGLx-2jPBgAJ>:
>>
>> "So I came home and ordered the tires and tubes on-line for a fraction
>> of what it would have cost me in their store and paid $140 or so."
>>
>> I sent an e-mail to the founder of the bike store, thanking him for
>> being diligent about stopping the spread of Covid:
>>
>> "Kudo's to Mikes Bikes for enforcing common-sense Covid-prevention
>> measures. Fortunately Tom just left without incident. Other covidiot
>> anti-maskers have been physically removed from stores like Walmart.
>> <https://youtu.be/f456x1Zvz3U>
>> <https://twitter.com/i/status/1292306240287248384>"
>>
>> I got a reply and had an e-mail exchange:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ken Martin
>> Sep 4, 2021, 4:28?AM
>> I’m not familiar with this incident, and the attachment didn’t come
>> through. Can you send it again, or a link to the post? -Ken -- Ken
>> Martin Founder & CEO Mike
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Steven Scharf
>> Sep 4, 2021, 4:32?AM
>> to Ken
>>
>> Here is a link to the thread on rec.bicycles.tech:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/7MGs55w41Qc
>>
>> The person that started this was upset that an employee at your
>> Pleasanton store told him that he had to wear a mask. That person has a
>> history of being a jerk.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Ken Martin
>> Sep 4, 2021, 4:36?AM
>> to me
>>
>> Thank you. Wow, he really does sound like a jerk. Thanks for sticking
>> up for us!!
>>
>> -Ken
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>>
>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
>> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
>Your sticking up for Mike's Bikes doesn't seem to have helped them. They are presently in financial trouble no doubt from trying to enforce Fauci's mania. Would you like to meet somewhere to discuss it?

There's a "Mike's Bikes" in Ruskin Florida, where I was once a partner
in a bike shop. It was a disastrous "affair" in more ways than one.
No, I don't want to say any more about it.

On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 9:08:41 a.m. UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/17/2024 7:15 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:37:54 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/16/2024 4:40 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:27 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/16/2024 4:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/16/2024 2:49 PM, sms wrote:
> >>>>>> On 1/16/2024 9:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Generally speaking I won't miss
> >>>>>>> tommy when he can't post here any more, but I _will_ miss gems like
> >>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That was the best!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FWIW, the great bicycle tube and tire shortage was during the Trump
> >>>>>> administration.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trump should have gotten an award from the National Bicycle Dealers
> >>>>>> Association (NBDA) because it was his horrible botching of the
> >>>>>> response to the Covid epidemic that led to the spectacular sales of
> >>>>>> bicycles, parts, and accessories.
> >>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/16/857157196/bike-sales-gear-up-as-the-homebound-try-socially-distant-exercise>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Biden, with his competent response to Covid, ended the pandemic and
> >>>>>> bicycle sales plunged as people could go back to other activities.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> During the pandemic, there was a big shortage to tubes and tires and
> >>>>>> prices skyrocketed. Now tubes and tires are readily available and
> >>>>>> prices have fallen. I just bought 27.5" Kenda tubes for less than $4
> >>>>>> each <https://www.ebay.com/itm/296093855956>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Obama's competent handling of the economy ended the recession caused
> >>>>>> by W. "The economy improved markedly under former President Barack
> >>>>>> Obama, from the start of 2009 through the end of 2016. Faced with the
> >>>>>> specter of another Great Depression in winter 2009, President Obama
> >>>>>> enacted a series of policies that helped the economy avoid that fate.
> >>>>>> The economy was growing again by the second half of 2009, and jobs
> >>>>>> followed suit by early 2010. Economic growth continued apace for the
> >>>>>> rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its
> >>>>>> longest expansion on record by early 2017, dating back to 1939.1
> >>>>>> Employment opportunities improved, the unemployment rate fell, wages
> >>>>>> eventually increased, and household debt dropped sharply."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Biden is reversing the failures of the Trump economy, with spectacular
> >>>>>> job growth, low unemployment, and a record stock market. The inflation
> >>>>>> caused by the spending during the pandemic is coming down nicely.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does the Obama Team (2009~16 and 2021~present) get credit for firearms
> >>>>> sales?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
> >>>>
> >>>> Indirectly - A large number of people bought into the lie spread by the
> >>>> NRA/GOP that Obama was going to take everyone's guns.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> During his presidency, Obama called for stricter gun laws and urged
> >>> Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban
> >>
> >> Which wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have restricted
> >> further sales.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Yes, Dummy, you see, the original assault weapons ban had a
> > grandfather clause that allowed a person to keep the weapon if he'd
> > gotten it before the ban, so, a wise person who thought they might
> > ever want one, went out and bought one, assuming a reinstatement of
> > the ban would have the same grandfather clause.
> >
> >
> Ask our contributor Mr Ridesalot about the permanence of
> such assurances.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Like when the people of High River registered their long guns and during a flood the RCMP went into the homes and took those ling guns. Gee, I wonder how the RCMP knew which homes had a ling gun in them?

It seems to me that our governments want only the authorities and criminals to have guns. The laws that the government pass only penalize law abiding gun owners and don't seem to do much to prevent the criminals from getting guns.

Cheers

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:02:26 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 9:08:41?a.m. UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 7:15 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:37:54 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1/16/2024 4:40 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:27 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/16/2024 4:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>> On 1/16/2024 2:49 PM, sms wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 1/16/2024 9:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Generally speaking I won't miss
>> >>>>>>> tommy when he can't post here any more, but I _will_ miss gems like
>> >>>>>>> this.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That was the best!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> FWIW, the great bicycle tube and tire shortage was during the Trump
>> >>>>>> administration.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Trump should have gotten an award from the National Bicycle Dealers
>> >>>>>> Association (NBDA) because it was his horrible botching of the
>> >>>>>> response to the Covid epidemic that led to the spectacular sales of
>> >>>>>> bicycles, parts, and accessories.
>> >>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/16/857157196/bike-sales-gear-up-as-the-homebound-try-socially-distant-exercise>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Biden, with his competent response to Covid, ended the pandemic and
>> >>>>>> bicycle sales plunged as people could go back to other activities.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> During the pandemic, there was a big shortage to tubes and tires and
>> >>>>>> prices skyrocketed. Now tubes and tires are readily available and
>> >>>>>> prices have fallen. I just bought 27.5" Kenda tubes for less than $4
>> >>>>>> each <https://www.ebay.com/itm/296093855956>.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Obama's competent handling of the economy ended the recession caused
>> >>>>>> by W. "The economy improved markedly under former President Barack
>> >>>>>> Obama, from the start of 2009 through the end of 2016. Faced with the
>> >>>>>> specter of another Great Depression in winter 2009, President Obama
>> >>>>>> enacted a series of policies that helped the economy avoid that fate.
>> >>>>>> The economy was growing again by the second half of 2009, and jobs
>> >>>>>> followed suit by early 2010. Economic growth continued apace for the
>> >>>>>> rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its
>> >>>>>> longest expansion on record by early 2017, dating back to 1939.1
>> >>>>>> Employment opportunities improved, the unemployment rate fell, wages
>> >>>>>> eventually increased, and household debt dropped sharply."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Biden is reversing the failures of the Trump economy, with spectacular
>> >>>>>> job growth, low unemployment, and a record stock market. The inflation
>> >>>>>> caused by the spending during the pandemic is coming down nicely.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Does the Obama Team (2009~16 and 2021~present) get credit for firearms
>> >>>>> sales?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Indirectly - A large number of people bought into the lie spread by the
>> >>>> NRA/GOP that Obama was going to take everyone's guns.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> During his presidency, Obama called for stricter gun laws and urged
>> >>> Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban
>> >>
>> >> Which wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have restricted
>> >> further sales.
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> > Yes, Dummy, you see, the original assault weapons ban had a
>> > grandfather clause that allowed a person to keep the weapon if he'd
>> > gotten it before the ban, so, a wise person who thought they might
>> > ever want one, went out and bought one, assuming a reinstatement of
>> > the ban would have the same grandfather clause.
>> >
>> >
>> Ask our contributor Mr Ridesalot about the permanence of
>> such assurances.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>Like when the people of High River registered their long guns and during a flood the RCMP went into the homes and took those ling guns. Gee, I wonder how the RCMP knew which homes had a ling gun in them?
>
>It seems to me that our governments want only the authorities and criminals to have guns. The laws that the government pass only penalize law abiding gun owners and don't seem to do much to prevent the criminals from getting guns.
>
>Cheers

"We're from the government and we're here to help."

On 1/17/2024 3:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:01:14 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You really aren't paying attention. I would have thought dumbing it down
>> for you would have worked, but I see I'll have to go even simpler with a
>> thought exercise (try hard little kitty, I know it's tough without your
>> mommy here to help you, but if you go slow a read carefully you just
>> might get it.)
>>
>>
>> I wrote:
>> The legislation "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have
>> restricted further sales."
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> " [a]person who thought they might ever want one, went out and bought
>> one, assuming a reinstatement of the ban would have the same grandfather
>> clause."
>>
>> Can you spot the difference in those two statements?
>
> <EYEROLL> Your statement was a not completely true statement about the
> government not taking guns away.

Yes, it was. The ban wouldn't have taken any legally purchase weapons.

>
> My statement was about why people bought guns before the potential ban
> took place, hoping they would be able to keep them after the ban took
> place, as the earlier ban had allowed.
>
> Of course they're different.

No, they aren't, you're trying to play a semantic game because I burned
your ass so badly over the AR15

>
> Are you confused about what the "grandfather clause" was?

in this context it's "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away"

Of course, dumbass, I mean 'legally acquired', not weapons that were
purchased illegally (after the ban), of course those would be
confiscated if found, but I wasn't referring to guns purchased after a
ban, dumbass.

--
Add xx to reply

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:24:28 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/17/2024 3:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:01:14 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You really aren't paying attention. I would have thought dumbing it down
>>> for you would have worked, but I see I'll have to go even simpler with a
>>> thought exercise (try hard little kitty, I know it's tough without your
>>> mommy here to help you, but if you go slow a read carefully you just
>>> might get it.)
>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote:
>>> The legislation "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have
>>> restricted further sales."
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> " [a]person who thought they might ever want one, went out and bought
>>> one, assuming a reinstatement of the ban would have the same grandfather
>>> clause."
>>>
>>> Can you spot the difference in those two statements?
>>
>> <EYEROLL> Your statement was a not completely true statement about the
>> government not taking guns away.
>
>Yes, it was. The ban wouldn't have taken any legally purchase weapons.

<LOL> Legally purchased... except when you give your legally purchased
gun to your son, friend, neighbor.

>> My statement was about why people bought guns before the potential ban
>> took place, hoping they would be able to keep them after the ban took
>> place, as the earlier ban had allowed.
>>
>> Of course they're different.
>
>No, they aren't, you're trying to play a semantic game because I burned
>your ass so badly over the AR15

You haven't made that case... But clearly my statement about the
Grandfather clause was all about why gun sales increased during the
Obama administration.

>> Are you confused about what the "grandfather clause" was?
>
>in this context it's "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away"

exceptions noted above... However the proposed ban was what
contributed to the increase in gun sales during the Obama
administration... which was what this discussion was all about before
you went off on this "legally purchased" tangent.

>Of course, dumbass, I mean 'legally acquired', not weapons that were
>purchased illegally (after the ban), of course those would be
>confiscated if found, but I wasn't referring to guns purchased after a
>ban, dumbass.

Purchased, or otherwise transferred, Dummy...

However the proposed ban was what contributed to the increase in gun
sales during the Obama administration... which was what this
discuission was all about before you went off on this "legally
purchased" tangent.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:28:21 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:55:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Well right now today:
>>>
>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>
>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>> 'infringe'.
>>
>>Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>>using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty buying
>>fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the disgusting
>>vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams tank on the
>>road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>
>>All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>
>>Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew pew"
>>small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to _finally_
>>guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
>
>No, but some folks are all upset about little "pew pew pew"
>small caliber AR15s.

But you can own a machine gun and, for that matter a U.S.Army tank,
although not an Abrams as I don't believe that the Army sell their
currently used main battle tank. I assume that the right to use a tank
on pubic highways is akin to using any tracked vehicle on a public
highway.
As for hand grenades, Ohio has quite expensive laws regarding the use
of explosives although I see no specific laws regarding hand grenades,
per se, but perhaps they are covered by some non specific rule.

Or to put it another way, Frankie, once again, expounds on a subject
about which he apparently knows nothing at all.?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:02:26 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 9:08:41?a.m. UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 7:15 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:37:54 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1/16/2024 4:40 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:27 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/16/2024 4:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>> On 1/16/2024 2:49 PM, sms wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 1/16/2024 9:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Generally speaking I won't miss
>> >>>>>>> tommy when he can't post here any more, but I _will_ miss gems like
>> >>>>>>> this.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> That was the best!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> FWIW, the great bicycle tube and tire shortage was during the Trump
>> >>>>>> administration.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Trump should have gotten an award from the National Bicycle Dealers
>> >>>>>> Association (NBDA) because it was his horrible botching of the
>> >>>>>> response to the Covid epidemic that led to the spectacular sales of
>> >>>>>> bicycles, parts, and accessories.
>> >>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/16/857157196/bike-sales-gear-up-as-the-homebound-try-socially-distant-exercise>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Biden, with his competent response to Covid, ended the pandemic and
>> >>>>>> bicycle sales plunged as people could go back to other activities.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> During the pandemic, there was a big shortage to tubes and tires and
>> >>>>>> prices skyrocketed. Now tubes and tires are readily available and
>> >>>>>> prices have fallen. I just bought 27.5" Kenda tubes for less than $4
>> >>>>>> each <https://www.ebay.com/itm/296093855956>.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Obama's competent handling of the economy ended the recession caused
>> >>>>>> by W. "The economy improved markedly under former President Barack
>> >>>>>> Obama, from the start of 2009 through the end of 2016. Faced with the
>> >>>>>> specter of another Great Depression in winter 2009, President Obama
>> >>>>>> enacted a series of policies that helped the economy avoid that fate.
>> >>>>>> The economy was growing again by the second half of 2009, and jobs
>> >>>>>> followed suit by early 2010. Economic growth continued apace for the
>> >>>>>> rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its
>> >>>>>> longest expansion on record by early 2017, dating back to 1939.1
>> >>>>>> Employment opportunities improved, the unemployment rate fell, wages
>> >>>>>> eventually increased, and household debt dropped sharply."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Biden is reversing the failures of the Trump economy, with spectacular
>> >>>>>> job growth, low unemployment, and a record stock market. The inflation
>> >>>>>> caused by the spending during the pandemic is coming down nicely.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Does the Obama Team (2009~16 and 2021~present) get credit for firearms
>> >>>>> sales?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Indirectly - A large number of people bought into the lie spread by the
>> >>>> NRA/GOP that Obama was going to take everyone's guns.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> During his presidency, Obama called for stricter gun laws and urged
>> >>> Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban
>> >>
>> >> Which wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have restricted
>> >> further sales.
>> >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> > Yes, Dummy, you see, the original assault weapons ban had a
>> > grandfather clause that allowed a person to keep the weapon if he'd
>> > gotten it before the ban, so, a wise person who thought they might
>> > ever want one, went out and bought one, assuming a reinstatement of
>> > the ban would have the same grandfather clause.
>> >
>> >
>> Ask our contributor Mr Ridesalot about the permanence of
>> such assurances.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>Like when the people of High River registered their long guns and during a flood the RCMP went into the homes and took those ling guns. Gee, I wonder how the RCMP knew which homes had a ling gun in them?
>
>It seems to me that our governments want only the authorities and criminals to have guns. The laws that the government pass only penalize law abiding gun owners and don't seem to do much to prevent the criminals from getting guns.
>
>Cheers

But does your government have a specific law the guarantees the right
to own and bear arms?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/17/2024 6:55 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:24:28 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/17/2024 3:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:01:14 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You really aren't paying attention. I would have thought dumbing it down
>>>> for you would have worked, but I see I'll have to go even simpler with a
>>>> thought exercise (try hard little kitty, I know it's tough without your
>>>> mommy here to help you, but if you go slow a read carefully you just
>>>> might get it.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wrote:
>>>> The legislation "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have
>>>> restricted further sales."
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>> " [a]person who thought they might ever want one, went out and bought
>>>> one, assuming a reinstatement of the ban would have the same grandfather
>>>> clause."
>>>>
>>>> Can you spot the difference in those two statements?
>>>
>>> <EYEROLL> Your statement was a not completely true statement about the
>>> government not taking guns away.
>>
>> Yes, it was. The ban wouldn't have taken any legally purchase weapons.
>
> <LOL> Legally purchased... except when you give your legally purchased
> gun to your son, friend, neighbor.

That isn't how grandfathering works, dumbass. If transfers were allowed
under the grandfathering legislation, they wouldn't be illegal, get it?

>
>>> My statement was about why people bought guns before the potential ban
>>> took place, hoping they would be able to keep them after the ban took
>>> place, as the earlier ban had allowed.
>>>
>>> Of course they're different.
>>
>> No, they aren't, you're trying to play a semantic game because I burned
>> your ass so badly over the AR15
>
> You haven't made that case

Yes, I did, you brought nothing to bear other than a contrived opinion.

.... But clearly my statement about the
> Grandfather clause was all about why gun sales increased during the
> Obama administration.
>
>>> Are you confused about what the "grandfather clause" was?
>>
>> in this context it's "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away"
>
> exceptions noted above... However the proposed ban was what
> contributed to the increase in gun sales during the Obama
> administration... which was what this discussion was all about before
> you went off on this "legally purchased" tangent.

And I didn't disagree with that fact that a proposed ban spurred sales,
asshole, You're the ignorant douche playing semantic games (badly)

>
>> Of course, dumbass, I mean 'legally acquired', not weapons that were
>> purchased illegally (after the ban), of course those would be
>> confiscated if found, but I wasn't referring to guns purchased after a
>> ban, dumbass.
>
> Purchased, or otherwise transferred, Dummy...

Of course, we see the way you interpret legal documentation - just like
humpty dumpty

>
> However the proposed ban was what contributed to the increase in gun
> sales during the Obama administration... which was what this
> discuission was all about before you went off on this "legally
> purchased" tangent.

Again, dumbass, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that a proposed ban
spurred sales. This is just you being a floriduh dumbass trying to
troll, and failing miserably as usual. Qualifying as 'legally purchased
(or other wise transferred)' is a critical point to the discussion such
that I would have thought it was implied and didn't need to be stated,
but then just when I think you couldn't be any more of a dumbass, you go
and outdo yourself with even more dumbassery.
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> Well right now today:
>>
>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>
>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define
>> the word 'infringe'.
>
> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and
> practice using them in my backyard! And what's with the
> stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore machine
> guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle regulations that
> make it so hard to drive an Abrams tank on the road! I want
> one for my _safety_!
>
> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>
> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little
> "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of
> America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms!
> Then men can finally feel manly!
>

The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes
between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc)
and borne or small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well,
if rarely). Good luck with an argument for hand grenades or
mobile artillery.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/17/2024 8:24 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Well right now today:
>>>
>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>
>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define the word
>>> 'infringe'.
>>
>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and practice
>> using them in my backyard! And what's with the stupid difficulty
>> buying fully automatic large bore machine guns? Then there are the
>> disgusting vehicle regulations that make it so hard to drive an Abrams
>> tank on the road! I want one for my _safety_!
>>
>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>
>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little "pew pew
>> pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of America to _finally_
>> guarantee our rights to _real_ arms! Then men can finally feel manly!
>>
>
> The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed'.
> A perusal of period military reports, especially quartermaster reports
> after captured sites, distinguishes between 'guns' (artillery, field
> pieces, mountain guns etc) and borne or small arms (rifles mostly but
> pistols as well, if rarely).  Good luck with an argument for hand
> grenades or mobile artillery.

Hmm. So you're saying the second amendment applies to the arms that a
"perusal of the period military reports" show could be "borne"?

I'm all for that interpretation. So is Jim Jeffries:
https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=421

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/17/2024 2:51 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 7:08:41 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 7:15 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 07:37:54 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/16/2024 4:40 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:22:27 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/16/2024 4:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/16/2024 2:49 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/16/2024 9:14 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't laughed this hard in weeks. Generally speaking I won't miss
>>>>>>>>> tommy when he can't post here any more, but I _will_ miss gems like
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was the best!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW, the great bicycle tube and tire shortage was during the Trump
>>>>>>>> administration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump should have gotten an award from the National Bicycle Dealers
>>>>>>>> Association (NBDA) because it was his horrible botching of the
>>>>>>>> response to the Covid epidemic that led to the spectacular sales of
>>>>>>>> bicycles, parts, and accessories.
>>>>>>>> <https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/16/857157196/bike-sales-gear-up-as-the-homebound-try-socially-distant-exercise>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Biden, with his competent response to Covid, ended the pandemic and
>>>>>>>> bicycle sales plunged as people could go back to other activities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> During the pandemic, there was a big shortage to tubes and tires and
>>>>>>>> prices skyrocketed. Now tubes and tires are readily available and
>>>>>>>> prices have fallen. I just bought 27.5" Kenda tubes for less than $4
>>>>>>>> each <https://www.ebay.com/itm/296093855956>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama's competent handling of the economy ended the recession caused
>>>>>>>> by W. "The economy improved markedly under former President Barack
>>>>>>>> Obama, from the start of 2009 through the end of 2016. Faced with the
>>>>>>>> specter of another Great Depression in winter 2009, President Obama
>>>>>>>> enacted a series of policies that helped the economy avoid that fate.
>>>>>>>> The economy was growing again by the second half of 2009, and jobs
>>>>>>>> followed suit by early 2010. Economic growth continued apace for the
>>>>>>>> rest of President Obama’s time in office, and job growth logged its
>>>>>>>> longest expansion on record by early 2017, dating back to 1939.1
>>>>>>>> Employment opportunities improved, the unemployment rate fell, wages
>>>>>>>> eventually increased, and household debt dropped sharply."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Biden is reversing the failures of the Trump economy, with spectacular
>>>>>>>> job growth, low unemployment, and a record stock market. The inflation
>>>>>>>> caused by the spending during the pandemic is coming down nicely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does the Obama Team (2009~16 and 2021~present) get credit for firearms
>>>>>>> sales?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indirectly - A large number of people bought into the lie spread by the
>>>>>> NRA/GOP that Obama was going to take everyone's guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> During his presidency, Obama called for stricter gun laws and urged
>>>>> Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban
>>>>
>>>> Which wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have restricted
>>>> further sales.
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> Yes, Dummy, you see, the original assault weapons ban had a
>>> grandfather clause that allowed a person to keep the weapon if he'd
>>> gotten it before the ban, so, a wise person who thought they might
>>> ever want one, went out and bought one, assuming a reinstatement of
>>> the ban would have the same grandfather clause.
>>>
>>>
>> Ask our contributor Mr Ridesalot about the permanence of
>> such assurances.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> As I said before my best childhood friend is still alive and retired from the US Marine Corp. Ask him about the Democrats belief in the Constitution since he spent the WW II years in the Manzanar Concentration Camp. Without access to what medical care there was, his father died there. Flunky will not be appreciative should we ever meet, with his belief that Obama's full intent was to get a foot in the door and take all guns away and Flunky's claim otherwise. Were the phrase "NRA" to pass his lips it would be months of plastic surgery before he would be capable of saying anything.

NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA
NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA NRA

It's going to be fun watching you _try_ to follow up on that threat (and
no, it has nothing to do with the fact that you live across the country.

...

All of my guns are gone because my younger brother had undue effect on
me while I was concussed. But now that I have the Loto and a complete 10
speed group for the Fondriest, I will sell off everything else which
will give me room in the garage. And I will rearm myself. With the
return of common sense cops will see the return of honest judges.

--
Add xx to reply

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 19:24:21 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/17/2024 2:55 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 1/17/2024 3:32 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> Well right now today:
>>>
>>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/1/5/24023878/assault-weapons-ban-illinois-registered-legal
>>>
>>> there are purported English speakers who yet cannot define
>>> the word 'infringe'.
>>
>> Right! I'm really peeved that I can't own hand grenades and
>> practice using them in my backyard! And what's with the
>> stupid difficulty buying fully automatic large bore machine
>> guns? Then there are the disgusting vehicle regulations that
>> make it so hard to drive an Abrams tank on the road! I want
>> one for my _safety_!
>>
>> All that stuff is infringement! But are people protesting? NO!
>>
>> Here's the real problem: The NRA is all upset about little
>> "pew pew pew" small caliber guns. We need a Bomb Owners of
>> America to _finally_ guarantee our rights to _real_ arms!
>> Then men can finally feel manly!
>>
>
>The relevant document says 'right to bear arms shall not be
>infringed'. A perusal of period military reports, especially
>quartermaster reports after captured sites, distinguishes
>between 'guns' (artillery, field pieces, mountain guns etc)
>and borne or small arms (rifles mostly but pistols as well,
>if rarely). Good luck with an argument for hand grenades or
>mobile artillery.

Unfortunately words do change their meaning over time but I believe
from what I have read that in the 1700's the term "Arms", as used in
the law, was intended to mean the weapons used by a military force and
in fact a number of states suggested amendments including the right
for the state to form a properly armed militia.

See
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-1787
for a rather detailed discussion of the subject in the sense of the
term in the late 1700's.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:09:39 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/17/2024 6:55 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:24:28 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/17/2024 3:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:01:14 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You really aren't paying attention. I would have thought dumbing it down
>>>>> for you would have worked, but I see I'll have to go even simpler with a
>>>>> thought exercise (try hard little kitty, I know it's tough without your
>>>>> mommy here to help you, but if you go slow a read carefully you just
>>>>> might get it.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>> The legislation "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have
>>>>> restricted further sales."
>>>>>
>>>>> You wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> " [a]person who thought they might ever want one, went out and bought
>>>>> one, assuming a reinstatement of the ban would have the same grandfather
>>>>> clause."
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you spot the difference in those two statements?
>>>>
>>>> <EYEROLL> Your statement was a not completely true statement about the
>>>> government not taking guns away.
>>>
>>> Yes, it was. The ban wouldn't have taken any legally purchase weapons.
>>
>> <LOL> Legally purchased... except when you give your legally purchased
>> gun to your son, friend, neighbor.
>
>That isn't how grandfathering works, dumbass. If transfers were allowed
>under the grandfathering legislation, they wouldn't be illegal, get it?

Well, yes, so the law does take guns that were bought legally. Yes, I
know that's a very small exception.

>>>> My statement was about why people bought guns before the potential ban
>>>> took place, hoping they would be able to keep them after the ban took
>>>> place, as the earlier ban had allowed.
>>>>
>>>> Of course they're different.
>>>
>>> No, they aren't, you're trying to play a semantic game because I burned
>>> your ass so badly over the AR15
>>
>> You haven't made that case
>
>Yes, I did, you brought nothing to bear other than a contrived opinion.

You only repeat the thing about the A F ordering them under that name.

>... But clearly my statement about the
>> Grandfather clause was all about why gun sales increased during the
>> Obama administration.
>>
>>>> Are you confused about what the "grandfather clause" was?
>>>
>>> in this context it's "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away"
>>
>> exceptions noted above... However the proposed ban was what
>> contributed to the increase in gun sales during the Obama
>> administration... which was what this discussion was all about before
>> you went off on this "legally purchased" tangent.
>
>And I didn't disagree with that fact that a proposed ban spurred sales,
>asshole, You're the ignorant douche playing semantic games (badly)

...and I didn't initially disagree with your statement about not taking
guns away..

>>> Of course, dumbass, I mean 'legally acquired', not weapons that were
>>> purchased illegally (after the ban), of course those would be
>>> confiscated if found, but I wasn't referring to guns purchased after a
>>> ban, dumbass.
>>
>> Purchased, or otherwise transferred, Dummy...

Yes.. I suspect it apply even if the gun was to be "transferred" via
probate.

>Of course, we see the way you interpret legal documentation - just like
>humpty dumpty

Blah, blah, blah..

>> However the proposed ban was what contributed to the increase in gun
>> sales during the Obama administration... which was what this
>> discuission was all about before you went off on this "legally
>> purchased" tangent.
>
>Again, dumbass, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that a proposed ban
>spurred sales. This is just you being a floriduh dumbass trying to
>troll, and failing miserably as usual. Qualifying as 'legally purchased
>(or other wise transferred)' is a critical point to the discussion such
>that I would have thought it was implied and didn't need to be stated,
>but then just when I think you couldn't be any more of a dumbass, you go
>and outdo yourself with even more dumbassery.
>>

....and I wasn't disagree with your statement about the law not taking
guns away, Dummy. My initial response to your statement was a "yes,"
and then I went on to address the previous poster's nonsense claim
that people went out and bought guns because they thought Obama was
going to take them away, which is ridiculous in itself. Why would
people go out and buy something that they believed were going to be
confiscated?

I explained to Junior several times that our two responces were, of
course, different because they addressing two different issues, but he
went on and on about how they were different.

I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
nonsense posts to be not worth reading, while he thinks everything is
all about him and his posts.

On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 5:06:54 AM UTC-5, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:09:39 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 1/17/2024 6:55 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:24:28 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 1/17/2024 3:12 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:01:14 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkm...@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You really aren't paying attention. I would have thought dumbing it down
> >>>>> for you would have worked, but I see I'll have to go even simpler with a
> >>>>> thought exercise (try hard little kitty, I know it's tough without your
> >>>>> mommy here to help you, but if you go slow a read carefully you just
> >>>>> might get it.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I wrote:
> >>>>> The legislation "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have
> >>>>> restricted further sales."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> " [a]person who thought they might ever want one, went out and bought
> >>>>> one, assuming a reinstatement of the ban would have the same grandfather
> >>>>> clause."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can you spot the difference in those two statements?
> >>>>
> >>>> <EYEROLL> Your statement was a not completely true statement about the
> >>>> government not taking guns away.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, it was. The ban wouldn't have taken any legally purchase weapons..
> >>
> >> <LOL> Legally purchased... except when you give your legally purchased
> >> gun to your son, friend, neighbor.
> >
> >That isn't how grandfathering works, dumbass. If transfers were allowed
> >under the grandfathering legislation, they wouldn't be illegal, get it?
> Well, yes, so the law does take guns that were bought legally. Yes, I
> know that's a very small exception.

No, the law does _not_ allow confiscation of guns that are legally bought, transferred, or otherwise possessed, you dumbshit. If you think it does, quote from the legislation where a it states that a gun that is legally purchased is confiscated without a crime being committed.

> >>>> My statement was about why people bought guns before the potential ban
> >>>> took place, hoping they would be able to keep them after the ban took
> >>>> place, as the earlier ban had allowed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course they're different.
> >>>
> >>> No, they aren't, you're trying to play a semantic game because I burned
> >>> your ass so badly over the AR15
> >>
> >> You haven't made that case
> >
> >Yes, I did, you brought nothing to bear other than a contrived opinion.
> You only repeat the thing about the A F ordering them under that name.

I quote from the official government report, dumbass. You state nothing but contrived opinion. Yes, I know, it kitty world, the contrived opinion of a floriduh dumbass is more accurate and valid than a government report referencing the actual transactions that states the history of the program. I know of two other idiots in this forum that both make statements completely contrary to facts and history who think that their bullshit is true, simply because they say it is. You're not in good company, dumbass.

> >... But clearly my statement about the
> >> Grandfather clause was all about why gun sales increased during the
> >> Obama administration.
> >>
> >>>> Are you confused about what the "grandfather clause" was?
> >>>
> >>> in this context it's "wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away"
> >>
> >> exceptions noted above... However the proposed ban was what
> >> contributed to the increase in gun sales during the Obama
> >> administration... which was what this discussion was all about before
> >> you went off on this "legally purchased" tangent.
> >
> >And I didn't disagree with that fact that a proposed ban spurred sales,
> >asshole, You're the ignorant douche playing semantic games (badly)
> ..and I didn't initially disagree with your statement about not taking
> guns away..

So you have no rational argument, you're just trolling, got it. How typically floriduh dumbass of you.

> >>> Of course, dumbass, I mean 'legally acquired', not weapons that were
> >>> purchased illegally (after the ban), of course those would be
> >>> confiscated if found, but I wasn't referring to guns purchased after a
> >>> ban, dumbass.
> >>
> >> Purchased, or otherwise transferred, Dummy...
> Yes.. I suspect it apply even if the gun was to be "transferred" via
> probate.

"suspect" - in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, in still other words, you're arguing from ignorance. How (even more) typically floriduh dumbass of you.

> >Of course, we see the way you interpret legal documentation - just like
> >humpty dumpty
> Blah, blah, blah..

Pretty much all we get from you.

> >> However the proposed ban was what contributed to the increase in gun
> >> sales during the Obama administration... which was what this
> >> discuission was all about before you went off on this "legally
> >> purchased" tangent.
> >
> >Again, dumbass, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that a proposed ban
> >spurred sales. This is just you being a floriduh dumbass trying to
> >troll, and failing miserably as usual. Qualifying as 'legally purchased
> >(or other wise transferred)' is a critical point to the discussion such
> >that I would have thought it was implied and didn't need to be stated,
> >but then just when I think you couldn't be any more of a dumbass, you go
> >and outdo yourself with even more dumbassery.
> >>
> ...and I wasn't disagree with your statement about the law not taking
> guns away, Dummy. My initial response to your statement was a "yes,"
> and then I went on to address the previous poster's nonsense claim
> that people went out and bought guns because they thought Obama was
> going to take them away, which is ridiculous in itself.

You're correct, the idea that obama was going to take anyones legally owned guns away was ridiculous in itself.

> Why would
> people go out and buy something that they believed were going to be
> confiscated?

Probably the same reason they thought Obama was going to take their guns in the first place, They're idiots.

> I explained to Junior several times that our two responces were, of
> course, different because they addressing two different issues, but he
> went on and on about how they were different.

No, that's your 4th grade reading comprehension. There's no difference between:

The legislation wouldn't have taken anyone's guns away, it would have restricted further sales."
and
" [a]person who thought they might ever want one, went out and bought one, assuming a reinstatement of the ban would have the same grandfather clause."

> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,

Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>

> while he thinks everything is all about him and his posts.

says RBTs 2nd biggest narcissist (behind that shitstain that lives in ireland).

"I look in the mirror and like what I see" - floriduh dumbass

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>
>Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>

I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
things you can't deal with. Other times I open your posts and see
your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.

4On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:20:40 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
><funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>>
>>Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>
>
>I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
>things you can't deal with. Other times I open your posts and see
>your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.

Think of it as doing a kindness. After all he has to nag someone, how
else to demonstrate his superiority? And if you didn't respond he'd be
reduced to nagging poor old Tom.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:26:41 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>4On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:20:40 -0500, Catrike Ryder
><Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>><funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>>>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>>>
>>>Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>
>>
>>I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
>>things you can't deal with. Other times I open your posts and see
>>your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.
>
>Think of it as doing a kindness. After all he has to nag someone, how
>else to demonstrate his superiority? And if you didn't respond he'd be
>reduced to nagging poor old Tom.
>

Even though I was all grown up before the "flowers_in_your_hair,
flowers_everywhere" generation, I don't understand all the hatred.

On 1/18/2024 6:20 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>>
>> Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>
>
> I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
> things you can't deal with.

lol...I present facts from verifiable sources, in floriduh dumbass world
that's 'ranting about things I can't deal with'.

> Other times I open your posts and see
> your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.

You earn every last bit of that vitriol, little man.

--
Add xx to reply

On 1/18/2024 7:26 AM, John B. wrote:
> 4On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:20:40 -0500, Catrike Ryder
> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>>>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>>>
>>> Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>
>>
>> I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
>> things you can't deal with. Other times I open your posts and see
>> your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.
>
> Think of it as doing a kindness. After all he has to nag someone, how
> else to demonstrate his superiority? And if you didn't respond he'd be
> reduced to nagging poor old Tom.
>

Gee John, I appreciate your characterizing me as being superior, but
none of this is about me.

I haven't bragged about the size of my legs, or alleged nudist
encounters, or how much stronger/faster/more experienced of a ride I am.
Kitty is more apt to make those types of statements. I'm just exposing
his abject hypocrisy and willful ignorance.

--
Add xx to reply

On 1/18/2024 7:58 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:26:41 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 4On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:20:40 -0500, Catrike Ryder
>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>>>>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>>>>
>>>> Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>
>>>
>>> I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
>>> things you can't deal with. Other times I open your posts and see
>>> your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.
>>
>> Think of it as doing a kindness. After all he has to nag someone, how
>> else to demonstrate his superiority? And if you didn't respond he'd be
>> reduced to nagging poor old Tom.
>>
>
> Even though I was all grown up before the "flowers_in_your_hair,
> flowers_everywhere" generation, I don't understand all the hatred.

Serious introspection would be a good place to start.

--
Add xx to reply

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 08:05:16 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/18/2024 7:58 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:26:41 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 4On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 06:20:40 -0500, Catrike Ryder
>>> <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 03:04:33 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
>>>> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think Junior doesn't quite understand that I generally consider his
>>>>>> nonsense posts to be not worth reading,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure dumbass, that's why you keep responding, right? <eyeroll>
>>>>
>>>> I sometimes repond because I enjoy seeing you rant and rave about
>>>> things you can't deal with. Other times I open your posts and see
>>>> your hateful rhetoric and just roll my eyes.
>>>
>>> Think of it as doing a kindness. After all he has to nag someone, how
>>> else to demonstrate his superiority? And if you didn't respond he'd be
>>> reduced to nagging poor old Tom.
>>>
>>
>> Even though I was all grown up before the "flowers_in_your_hair,
>> flowers_everywhere" generation, I don't understand all the hatred.
>
>Serious introspection would be a good place to start.

I don't hate you, Junior, but I do pity you a bit. All that anger...
Tsk, tsk, tsk....