About Us

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:29:35 -0600, wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:56:05 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,

If a law was the answer to that problem, we wouldn't have a problem.
Interstate sales of firearms has been illegal since 1968.

More bull****. Point at unenforced and unenforcable laws - then say all
laws are bad. Murders happen so laws against it are bad.

Laws that are meaningful are fine. Laws that are unenforced or
unenforceable are an insult to the system.
Why not try to enforce the laws we have before we pass more.
If a guy is willing to break several federal and state laws to bring a
gun into New Jersey or Chicago and the feds don't even try to catch
them, why would the crook be afraid of another law?
How many prosecutions have there been of people lying on the
application or trying to buy a gun illegally?
Over a million have done it, a couple hundred were prosecuted.

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."

If you really have to do the transfer through a dealer, why do you
think it would be $10?
The guy brokering my machine gun sale is getting about 15% and he was
the best deal I could get. Most want 20 or 25%. (granted that is a
form 4 transfer, not a 4473 but the work is about the same)

More of your ****ing dancing around. Now you're quibbling over a few
bucks and talking about machine guns.
Go find a NRA brother to bull****. Doesn't work with me.

This won't be a few bucks if we have to have a dealer broker a private
sale, it will be a percentage of the price. (the point of my post
about a transfer that I do have to take to a dealer) That is why they
are only talking about a background check, with people assuming the
seller could do it. If they said they were banning private transfers,
this would never get out of committee. (assuming it could anyway)

This law is not going to mirror the California law. Just to get it to
pass, it will be watered down to a point that it is largely
meaningless, only being a burden on people who want to do the right
thing.

The purpose in passing a bunch of new laws is *not* to protect people. It is to enable the formation
of more agencies with more offices to hold more employees who are members of the AFGE.

Let's don't lose track of the overarching goal - bigger government.

Salmonbait

Yeah, we don't need any laws, right, moron? Do you not think that laws
saying someone can't break into your home and take what they want are
protecting you? What about rape laws? Not protecting anybody? Or do you
just mean the laws that you don't like?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Feinstein's list of banned guns...	Salmonbait[_2_]	General	117	February 2nd 13 04:44 PM
now banned..	[email protected]	General	153	May 21st 08 07:02 PM
now banned..	Chuck Gould	General	3	May 20th 08 01:09 AM
Banned?	Richard Casady	General	9	May 19th 08 09:49 PM
now banned..	[email protected]	General	2	May 17th 08 09:27 PM

Menu

About Us