What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:21:13 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


It is an unenforceable law if you are talking about 2 individuals in a
private transaction of an unregistered item. That makes it voluntary.
It is like trying to make people pay sales taxes if they sell a lawn
mower to a neighbor. Is it the law? Usually. Is compliance voluntary?
Yes since there is no real way to regulate it..


You've completely forgotten I've said before that firearms should be
registered. That's what will eventually happen, whether you like it or
not. You might be dead by then, but you won't rest in peace.



.
Right now I have no way of submitting a background check even if I
wanted to. That is the loophole in the current law.

This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.


So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.
Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?


And if they require background checks on the federal level, they'll
probably use a version of California's example, where a trip to a FFL
and a NICS check are already required for ALL gun sales. It's a simple
matter of seller and buyer showing up at any FFL, filling out the form,
and the FFL runs the NICS check. The FFL charges 10 bucks.
There's only one problem with that.

So this is a new tax. OK it makes a bit more sense now.
Democrats love taxes.

So gun nuts want EVERYBODY ELSE to pay the estimated gun violence cost
of $100 billion a year - because they don't want to pay a $10 NICS fee.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Again, are you saying NOBODY in California ever transfers a firearm
without doing this? (even people who have nothing in particular to
hide)


I never said that.

That removes criminals and crazy folks from you buyer pool.
Not good for sales.

What does this have to do with me (other than your need to insult
people who disagree with you)
I own a transferrable machine gun. Any further background checking is
redundant.


I don't care what guns a gun nut owns. And there's nothing wrong with
insulting gun nuts who deny that people should be responsible gun
owners, and do their share to reduce gun crime.
There's lots of what you call "insulting" going on right now, and you
should get used to it, because there's more coming down the pike.

More people have died riding with Ted Kennedy in his car than have died
from any firearms I own.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Feb 4, 7:44*am, iBoaterer wrote:


Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying
weapons in the first place."

Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can
buy car insurance?

Cite?

Do I really need to look it up for you?

http://www.facebook.com/dickdurbin/p...88305181232922

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...


This brings up another issue. Is there a privacy issue of opening up
criminal and mental health records to any curious person who says he
might want to sell a gun to someone?
If you wanted to dig some dirt on your neighbor, just submit a
firearms background check. You could always say the sale fell through
after you got the information.

Plain ignorance there. A NICS check requires the purchaser to fill out
ATF form 4473. The only "dirt" that comes back from NICS is "Proceed,"
"Deny," or "Delay."

"Deny" is dirt. It means that person is either a criminal or mentally
ill. If they already ran a criminal background check, you now know
they are mentally ill. I am OK with that, it will be the civil rights
people who stop it.
That may be why you can only get a background check if you are an FFL.


So you want to dig up dirt on a neighbor. That's what you just said.
And how you're going to do that is to convince to the neighbor to buy a
gun from you.

How do they know there was ever a gun?


So you're going to get the neighbor down to the FFL to fill out a 4473
for the NICS check, and never show him the gun you're "selling" him?
To dig up "dirt" on him?
So now you think kidnapping is ok.
Better watch him close so he doesn't signal somebody in the gun shop
that he's been kidnapped.


Then you take the neighbor to a FFL for a NICS check, hoping it will
return "Deny." And have the neighbor fill out the 4473 and pay the fee,
even if he knows he won't pass the NICS check.
So you can dig up "dirt" on the neighbor.
Are you ****ing crazy?

Nobody has said anything about 4473s in this legislation. Now you are
just dreaming.


Who's dreaming here? I never mentioned any legislation.
You're the one who was talking about digging up "dirt" on a neighbor
using a firearms background check. The purchaser has to be in front of
a FFL for that to happen.
And the 4473 is already part of the NICS check. It has the info used in
the check.
So you're the dreamer - and you don't know much about this.

What guns would be banned:
 

On 2/4/13 8:51 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:58:31 -0500, BAR wrote:

Go for it. BTW, guns can't be cut up for parts.

The parts of a gun can be disassembled and redistributed.

Yeah, that certainly screws up all of that firearm fingerprinting
doesn't it?


So, let's not do anything because, well, it isn't easy. D'oh.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...


The NRA made over $35 million bucks since this hoohah started based on
the million new members they signed up and that has nothing to do with
the solicitation of current members for more money.


What makes you think the NRA has signed up any new members?
Because they say so?
And you just take that for gospel.
hehe. You sure are naive.

What guns would be banned:
 

wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:57:45 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:


So you're going to get the neighbor down to the FFL to fill out a 4473
for the NICS check, and never show him the gun you're "selling" him?
To dig up "dirt" on him?

Now you are trying to impose California rules on the US. The proposal
was supposed to be private transfer background checks. As soon as you
involve a FFL, it is not a private sale anymore.
I can certainly see why the FFL would like to tack his profit on all
sales tho.


Against free enterprise, eh? :)

BTW, your computer clock is off.

What guns would be banned:
 

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:22:51 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

On 2/4/2013 6:01 PM, Salmonbait wrote:


Ditto with Gander Mountain, WalMart, the military exchanges, most of the internet ammo sites. As
these places get them in, the guns are gone in a heartbeat.

Psssttt, hey buddy... do you wanna' buy some bullets? Shhhhh, call Tim,
I turned him onto a place to buy about as much as your little heart
needs... shhhhhhhh :)


What're they getting for 9mm? WalMart just got me for $13.95/50 rounds. But, could buy only 3 boxes.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your
parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

What guns would be banned:
 

In article 1c9a48d5-f2c8-4817-b142-
, says...

On Feb 4, 7:44*am, iBoaterer wrote:


Dick Durbin says- "Background checks will stop criminals from buying
weapons in the first place."

Is that like allowing illegals to have drivers licenses so they can
buy car insurance?

Cite?

Do I really need to look it up for you?

http://www.facebook.com/dickdurbin/p...88305181232922

Cite was about illegal aliens and driver's licenses. But, background
checks can only do one thing, and that is help. Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night? Gun shows and private sellers at those gun
shows. They are not supposed to sell to someone who they think would not
pass the check. The undercover people time and time again, said right to
the seller that they probably couldn't pass, not one single seller said
he wouldn't sell to them. Some even said things like "I don't care".

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On 2/4/2013 6:13 PM, ESAD wrote:
On 2/4/13 5:48 PM, wrote:



It is an unenforceable law if you are talking about 2 individuals in a
private transaction of an unregistered item. That makes it voluntary.
It is like trying to make people pay sales taxes if they sell a lawn
mower to a neighbor. Is it the law? Usually. Is compliance voluntary?
Yes since there is no real way to regulate it..

It will be enforced if it is criminalized at the federal level.


He's right.. It will be enforced by our politically and racially
motivated "Justice Dept".. snerk

Please show where our "Justice Department" is "racially motivated",
idiot. OR is this just more of your insanity?

What guns would be banned:
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:42:06 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

Did you happen to see
ABC World News last night? Gun shows and private sellers at those gun
shows. They are not supposed to sell to someone who they think would not
pass the check. The undercover people time and time again, said right to
the seller that they probably couldn't pass, not one single seller said
he wouldn't sell to them. Some even said things like "I don't care".


What do you think their answer would be to "did you actually do a
background check?, you know it is the law."

Corey Booker (Newark Mayor) was on Bill Maher the other night saying
100% of the guns recovered after a crime were illegally obtained.
You need a state issued license to buy a gun from anyone in New Jersey
that includes a background check. How is that working out for them?

That's obvious to anybody not too busy spouting NRA talking points.
Won't work when criminals can make an easy drive to Florida and buy all
the guns they want from you.
And that's how you want it. You've said that time and again.
You don't want your guns traceable. You don't want to pay 10 bucks for
a background check. That's all "impossible."
Oh, you might be all legal.
But your thinking is dirty.
When folks finally realize it's the gun nuts like you who ensure
criminals always have an easy source for guns, things will change.
Might take another decade or two, depending on gun homicide rates and
mass shootings, but things always change.
A black president - two terms. (And a fair possibility for a woman the
next two terms.)
Universal health care.
Open gays in the military. Women in combat.
Guys legally marrying guys, and women women.
And just 10 years ago you would be arguing here why none of that could
ever happen. Impossible, just impossible. You may still be denying all
of that has even happened. Common trait of old right wingers.
Truth doesn't matter. What I believe is what matters. Anything I don't
like is impossible, and I'll give you twenty reasons why.
Including digging up "dirt" on a neighbor, or how a gun is a saw blade.
So excuse me if I don't take your gun prognostications seriously.
Now go take one of your untraceable guns and put it on your table saw
arbor. Or maybe attach it to a hammer handle or car bumper.
Just try to focus so you don't shoot yourself.