"Nobody wants to take your guns..."

[jimmy the one]

80. overarching the underlying

I wrote: Beevul is not arguing the political aspect, he clearly labels this an 'anti gun' tactic;

beevul: Yes, he in fact is. Since I am he, I think I can speak for him better than you can. My intention was to emphasize how they went against Democrats.

No. You did not mention that at all, you wrote: Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?
You considered it 'anti-gun' for Shannon to withhold support for the two 'pro gun' dems because the two voted against background checks. That was & has been your underlying point.

But it doesn't matter, since you agreed with my overarching point that you are against background checks because they are unenforceable, when you wrote this:
They {background checks} are unenforceable without registration. Where personally owned private property is concerned, I do not support the infrastructure - registration - necessary to make it enforceable,

That YOU think background checks are unenforceable is beside the point; the point is that you oppose background checks as currently being conducted, when applying to all gun sales.
Thus you go against the majority democrat gun owner position.

beevul: Asserting that I'm distressed without evidence. Its a fair and valid question. Want to take a stab at answering it?

You answer it yourself. You concur you are against background checks. Bloomberg financially supported bg checks in Oregon. You were distressed why Bloomberg spent so much supporting background checks, "IF THIS IS WHAT THE VOTERS WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE".

beevul, another thread, distressed at the passage of bg check legislation in oregon: Why does Bloomberg have to spend nearly ten times as much in lobbying money as the pro-gun lobby {to support background check legislation in Oregon}, if this is what the voters wanted in the first place?