![]() |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:30:15 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 6/23/13 8:22 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... They all missed my point. The point is like gun control... if we let them give citizenship, without *first* securing the border, the border won't get secured. There will be financing delays, lawsuits, and just "rules" made by administration officials that delay or sink the security end of the bill asap.... It's just the way things go in Washington, the Dems make promises "if" the repubs will just cave and of course like in 84 and the fence in '06... All we will end up with in millions of new dem voters.... Scotty O'reilly speaks!! It really doesn't matter whether a fence is erected along the U.S.-Mexico border, because such devices don't work. The Great Wall of China didn't work, and the Berlin Wall didn't work...both were breached many, many times. But calling for the building of such a wall gets the righties what they want...a delay in a real immigration plan "until" the wall is built. It's just more conservative cynicism. Got to get serious about those who climb the fence. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:07:32 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... Great Wall didn't work, Iron Curtain didn't work?? Sure they did. Nothing is 100% but they didn't have the wholesale migration from one side to the other we have now here... --------------------------------- The "Iron Curtain" was a wall? The part around East Berlin sure as hell was. Much of the rest was barbed wire and land mines, with guard posts in sight of each other all along the East-West German border. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:15:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:44:22 -0400, John H wrote: On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:02:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check (s), and who gets paid? See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and bureaucracy isn't the safety of the citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes. Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with a background check? Would the murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background checks? I am not convinced. John H. Many places require that any transfer of a handgun (private gift or sale) requires that the receiver of the gun must have a gun permit. Background checks don't seem to work, because they only "apply" to the lawful. By FAR, most of the gun violence is centered in large cities. -------------------------------- This debate is getting tangle footed. Here's what I would propose: A background check is required to obtain a permit to own a handgun or rifle. Once issued, the only "check" required to purchase a firearm is to ensure the permit is in good standing and the person buying the firearm is who he/she claims to be. That's where the fingerprints come in. I am not advocating a background check every time you buy a gun. The background check is done once to obtain a permit. More bureaucracy, more taxes, bigger AFGE. And it solves nothing. John (Gun Nut) H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com