Mock

I didn't mention background checks and I don't care who questions what, Gunnar. Your babbling responses have nothing to do with my comment, which is frequently the case with you.

I simply noted that the ATF determines who qualifies as a dealer and issues the licenses; that's not something Obama is proposing to change.

I think the ATF is the right agency to continue doing so, personally. And, I like the idea that under Obama's proposal, the ATF will have more defined criteria as to what constitutes "dealing." Once the proposal is enacted, if you're dealing firearms at a gun show or over the internet, the ATF will have the means to better enforce the existing law and require you to get a license and run background checks on your potential buyers (same as law-abiding dealers already do).

You would not be subject to dealer review by the ATF for selling one of your grandfather's guns to your father; not now and not under Obama's new proposals, to the best of my understanding. But, maybe someone will pose a related question at Thursday's Town Hall.

I'm just wondering if those pushing for this understand what they are even talking about. Making anyone that sells a gun, get a FFL IS NOT going to happen. I say that not because I don't think people will apply, but because the ATF wont allow it to happen. The ATF denies most FFL applications from kitchen table dealers, as it is. I was told no when I applied for my FFL when I was going to run a business out of my house. But as soon as I had a store front that I could set up shop in, Whammo, here is your license. Well that is after I paid my $200 to the feds [that's what this is really all about, more $$ in their pockets. That's what its always about, MONEY] , had a agent come out and inspect the storefront and lecture me on the way to do business. SOooo , I don't see any of these little guys getting permission from the feds to operate a biz out of their house [that is unless they loosen they rules to allow home dealers].
I think this should have ben approached from a different angle. Instead of saying you must be a FFL to sell a gun I think they should have said the transaction must be RUN THROUGH a FFL. A transfer through a FFL is only 25-50 dollars, depending on where you are in the country. That would have ben a much better approach than saying a person must hold a FFL.
That being said the entire situation is a feel good, hope it works fuck fest. I say that because guns are not registered in this country. So how will they know who owned what and when? I see nothing that he is doing that is enforceable. But at least he will make the gun grabbers happy and say see, I did something and they will be dumb enough to nod their heads and say yep, you sure did.

(01-05-2016, 04:43 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't mention background checks at all and I don't care who questions what, Gunnar. Your babbling responses have nothing to do with my comment, which is frequently the case with you.

I simply noted that the ATF determines who qualifies as a dealer and issues the licenses; that's not something Obama is proposing to change.

I think the ATF is the right agency to continue doing so, personally. And, I like the idea that under Obama's proposal, the ATF will have more defined criteria as to what constitutes "dealing." Once the proposal is enacted, if you're dealing firearms at a gun show or over the internet, the ATF will have the means to better enforce the existing law and require you to get a license and run background checks on your potential buyers (same as law-abiding dealers already do).

You would not be subject to dealer review by the ATF for selling one of your grandfather's guns to your father; not now and not under Obama's new proposals, to the best of my understanding. But, maybe someone will pose a related question at Thursday's Town Hall.

The ATF doesn't have the personnel or the funding to do its current job. How do you expect them to perform these executive orders in the next 11 months HoTD? It took Obama 7 years just to name a director, and you want to put them in charge of these executive orders? I don't see how anything can go wrong there do you?

(01-04-2016, 10:57 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2016, 04:24 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone with common sense, knows

Why is it the most inane, ultimatum opinions are always preceded by attempts at conformity. As if anyone who disagrees with you has no common sense.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Some of you act like the 2^nd amendment is more holy than the Pope.....I am sick of your spouting on and on about your fucking rights to own and bear arms, fuck faces......

In 1791, most states ratified the Bill of Rights, which gave "birth" to the 2^nd amendment. The word amendment itself demonstrates that it was a change to original bill.....Actually, we do not know the intent of our Founding Fathers.....Today, this is open to interpretation...did they mean collective and/or individual right to bear arms....... organized militia (?). The debate continues into the 2000's......and noone has dared to challenge this murky amendment.....not even President Obama.


The fact is that societies evolve and laws should do the same...Most of us (and no, I am not going to provide you with statistics) support tighter gun controls such as more in depth background check, close loopholes, and enforce laws on the book......Why would any "normal" person oppose this? There is something wrong with your brain cells if you do not support this change.

If some of you don't support our Government, then I suggest you, along with Donald Trump buy a one-way ticket on a slow boat to China and take your guns with you and Cutz, you who, mocks common sense, could use a big dose of it. Not every one is blessed with common sense (like myself). What is it about owning or discussing guns that turns some of you into whining bitches.

One final note, firearms were used in the 18^th century primarily to "kick" the Native Americans off their land and subsequently, the Revolutionary War.......you think maybe it is a different time?

(01-05-2016, 05:11 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2016, 10:57 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-04-2016, 04:24 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone with common sense, knows

Why is it the most inane, ultimatum opinions are always preceded by attempts at conformity. As if anyone who disagrees with you has no common sense.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Some of you act like the 2^nd amendment is more holy than the Pope.....I am sick of your spouting on and on about your fucking rights to own and bear arms, fuck faces......

In 1791, most states ratified the Bill of Rights, which gave "birth" to the 2^nd amendment. The word amendment itself demonstrates that it was a change to original bill.....Actually, we do not know the intent of our Founding Fathers.....Today, this is open to interpretation...did they mean collective and/or individual right to bear arms....... organized militia (?). The debate continues into the 2000's......and noone has dared to challenge this murky amendment.....not even President Obama.


The fact is that societies evolve and laws should do the same...Most of us (and no, I am not going to provide you with statistics) support tighter gun controls such as more in depth background check, close loopholes, and enforce laws on the book......Why would any "normal" person oppose this? There is something wrong with your brain cells if you do not support this change.

If some of you don't support our Government, then I suggest you, along with Donald Trump buy a one-way ticket on a slow boat to China and take your guns with you and Cutz, you who, mocks common sense, could use a big dose of it. Not every one is blessed with common sense (like myself). What is it about owning or discussing guns that turns some of you into whining bitches.

One final note, firearms were used in the 18^th century primarily to "kick" the Native Americans off their land and subsequently, the Revolutionary War.......you think maybe it is a different time?

Borja /end rant.

Holy sheep shit that actually got me laughing out loud. More holy than the pope. Well hell yes. I believe in the 2^nd and not the pope so yes it is more important. Fuck faces, OMG that's just funny in itself. Common sense like yourself and whiney bitch. That's some funny shit and had me almost in tears since it was coming from a post full of bitching and cussing. BBH, please don't ever stop posting.

(01-05-2016, 05:38 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

I think fuck face should be all one word. Fuckface. See?

You are correct. I just googled it. Probably not the smartest term I ever googled.

Would you call me a fuckhead or fuckface ?

I know gun sales go up, often way up, when legislation is proposed but I'm beginning to see a small dent in the NRA's influence. I'm pretty sure their membership numbers are dropping (I think they peaked quite a long time ago) and I hear, in the media and such, more people expressing disgust with the organization. Maybe the NRA isn't weakening but the gun control advocates are getting louder.

The day after Obummer mentioned executive powers just a few weeks ago, we sold out of AR's and AK's. Obummer is the best gun salesman we have ever seen. I think he needs a FFL too because he sure does sell a lot of arms.

(01-05-2016, 05:11 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2016, 04:43 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't mention background checks at all and I don't care who questions what, Gunnar. Your babbling responses have nothing to do with my comment, which is frequently the case with you.

I simply noted that the ATF determines who qualifies as a dealer and issues the licenses; that's not something Obama is proposing to change.

I think the ATF is the right agency to continue doing so, personally. And, I like the idea that under Obama's proposal, the ATF will have more defined criteria as to what constitutes "dealing." Once the proposal is enacted, if you're dealing firearms at a gun show or over the internet, the ATF will have the means to better enforce the existing law and require you to get a license and run background checks on your potential buyers (same as law-abiding dealers already do).

You would not be subject to dealer review by the ATF for selling one of your grandfather's guns to your father; not now and not under Obama's new proposals, to the best of my understanding. But, maybe someone will pose a related question at Thursday's Town Hall.

The ATF doesn't have the personnel or the funding to do its current job. How do you expect them to perform these executive orders in the next 11 months HoTD? It took Obama 7 years just to name a director, and you want to put them in charge of these executive orders? I don't see how anything can go wrong there do you?

You're like that clumsy guy who trips over his own two feet, then tries to deflect and pass it off as an intentional spontaneous dance move in the produce aisle. You meant to do it!

Anyway.............the ATF has been around since long before Obama; often times reasonably or unreasonably perceived to be understaffed and/or inefficient (like almost every agency).

The ATF heads are part of the team which has developed the proposed Executive Actions. And, as noted in the article snip I posted this morning, your concern has been addressed in the Executive Action plan. The ATF staff and budget will be expanded to handle the additional screening and checks.

Whether the ATF will struggle or skate in handling the expanded dealer-qualification responsibilities will depend on several factors. I have no reason to conclude that they'll fail and I hope that they'll be able to manage it well.

So far, Gunnar, nothing you've posted here today makes the Executive Actions seem any less reasonable or prudent. Obama's not touching your grandpa's gun. You claim to be dissatisfied with the ATF, but they've been in charge of firearms-related procedures through many administrations and their resources will be expanded in accordance with expanded scope of duties.

You previously claimed that you're all for universal background checks. There's nothing nonsensical in the proposal to help achieve that goal. You seem to be objecting for objection's sake; no substance.

Also, you've previously advocated for smart gun technology to promote greater gun safety. Well, Obama agrees with you and he's pushing for investment in that area as well.

So, nothing changes for you with the enactment of the Executive Actions. And, nothing changes for people who actually own guns either, so long as they're not illegally dealing them or attempting to purchase them illegally.

If you want to object to any president using Executive Order/Action because you don't trust the government, I understand. But that's not a gun or Obama beef, that's a legal matter that applies across administrations and a multitude of topics.

I do know that the NICS system is understaffed at times. I frequently get put on hold during a call in , stating that they are experiencing a unusual large amount of activity at this time.
I also believe the ATF may be understaffed because it took me, if I remember right, 3 months to get a agent out to the shop to do my inspection before they issued my first FFL.
SO I am sure they will need more people in those categories.
I think we will have a record year at the shop. Not just in sales, but also in transfers. We already do a lot of internet transfers for people. Weather or not people believe it, internet sales are already required to be done through a FFL, mailed to a FFL, background check done by that FFL . Go On, oh lets say, Buds Guns [one of many internet dealers] and try and buy a gun and see for yourself what it takes.

(01-05-2016, 05:52 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Would you call me a fuckhead or fuckface ?

Technically, you are a dickhead!

WOOT WOOT. Nicest thing I have ben called today. Thanks BBH
Don't hate me because I have a big dick. My girls gave me that hat and said that to me. Made me laugh my ass off. Hot Damn, life is good.

I know many people don't like Obama for many reasons, but I definitely think he's getting fucked in the ass over the gun issue. WTF do you want him to do? He's damned if he does and damned if he don't? The guy has very minimal control over your stupid fucking guns and I don't think his ultimate goal is tyranny and the uprising of extremist Muslims.

(01-05-2016, 05:02 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just wondering if those pushing for this understand what they are even talking about. Making anyone that sells a gun, get a FFL IS NOT going to happen. I say that not because I don't think people will apply, but because the ATF wont allow it to happen. The ATF denies most FFL applications from kitchen table dealers, as it is. I was told no when I applied for my FFL when I was going to run a business out of my house. But as soon as I had a store front that I could set up shop in, Whammo, here is your license. Well that is after I paid my $200 to the feds [that's what this is really all about, more $$ in their pockets. That's what its always about, MONEY] , had a agent come out and inspect the storefront and lecture me on the way to do business. SOooo , I don't see any of these little guys getting permission from the feds to operate a biz out of their house [that is unless they loosen they rules to allow home dealers].
I think this should have ben approached from a different angle. Instead of saying you must be a FFL to sell a gun I think they should have said the transaction must be RUN THROUGH a FFL. A transfer through a FFL is only 25-50 dollars, depending on where you are in the country. That would have ben a much better approach than saying a person must hold a FFL.
That being said the entire situation is a feel good, hope it works fuck fest. I say that because guns are not registered in this country. So how will they know who owned what and when? I see nothing that he is doing that is enforceable. But at least he will make the gun grabbers happy and say see, I did something and they will be dumb enough to nod their heads and say yep, you sure did.

Good news for you F.U.; your complaints validate some of the reasons why the Executive Actions have been proposed; they address some of your complaints.

The ATF criteria for qualifying "dealers" has in fact been changed to specifically include people who sell arms outside of traditional gun stores. Good news.

And, with more sellers qualifying as dealers and thus being licensed, more background checks will be required. Your recent position on universal background checks is a big thumbs up. So, good news for you there too, F.U.

And, since the ATF will of course know who those newly-licensed dealers are, they can take actions against those who fail to run the required background checks and/or sell to unqualified buyers. And, the ATF will also be able to more easily require those in the under-the-table business of dealing guns to be licensed when they come across them, using the new criteria. More enforcement of existing laws, as you rightfully advocate often. More good news.

As for this being all about money, I personally feel the NRA and gun lobbyists who oppose the current proposal are objecting due primarily to money motives; the more guns in more hands (legally or not), the more ammunition sold, the more upgrades desired, the more introduced to the next generation, etc...

And even if money is a partial motive for the government, if you've got a business selling guns and you're doing it under the table (and therefore not paying like other businesses), it's another problem solved under the proposed Executive Actions. Good news again.

You must feel really good that complaints you've lodged and corrections you've suggested in regards to the current system are being addressed by these Executive Actions. But, if you want to make their enforcement easier and more effective by establishing that gun registry you always put forth, that's gonna have to wait. It's not being proposed.

(01-05-2016, 07:36 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2016, 05:02 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just wondering if those pushing for this understand what they are even talking about. Making anyone that sells a gun, get a FFL IS NOT going to happen. I say that not because I don't think people will apply, but because the ATF wont allow it to happen. The ATF denies most FFL applications from kitchen table dealers, as it is. I was told no when I applied for my FFL when I was going to run a business out of my house. But as soon as I had a store front that I could set up shop in, Whammo, here is your license. Well that is after I paid my $200 to the feds [that's what this is really all about, more $$ in their pockets. That's what its always about, MONEY] , had a agent come out and inspect the storefront and lecture me on the way to do business. SOooo , I don't see any of these little guys getting permission from the feds to operate a biz out of their house [that is unless they loosen they rules to allow home dealers].
I think this should have ben approached from a different angle. Instead of saying you must be a FFL to sell a gun I think they should have said the transaction must be RUN THROUGH a FFL. A transfer through a FFL is only 25-50 dollars, depending on where you are in the country. That would have ben a much better approach than saying a person must hold a FFL.
That being said the entire situation is a feel good, hope it works fuck fest. I say that because guns are not registered in this country. So how will they know who owned what and when? I see nothing that he is doing that is enforceable. But at least he will make the gun grabbers happy and say see, I did something and they will be dumb enough to nod their heads and say yep, you sure did.

Good news for you F.U.; your complaints validate some of the reasons why the Executive Actions have been proposed; they address some of your complaints.

The ATF criteria for qualifying "dealers" has in fact been changed to specifically include people who sell arms outside of traditional gun stores. Good news.

And, with more sellers qualifying as dealers and thus being licensed, more background checks will be required. Your recent position on universal background checks is a big thumbs up. So, good news for you there too, F.U.

And, since the ATF will of course know who those newly-licensed dealers are, they can take actions against those who fail to run the required background checks and/or sell to unqualified buyers. And, the ATF will also be able to more easily require those in the under-the-table business of dealing guns to be licensed when they come across them, using the new criteria. More enforcement of existing laws, as you rightfully advocate often. More good news.

As for this being all about money, I personally feel the NRA and gun lobbyists who oppose the current proposal are objecting due primarily to money motives; the more guns in more hands (legally or not), the more ammunition sold, the more upgrades desired, the more introduced to the next generation, etc...

And even if money is a partial motive for the government, if you've got a business selling guns and you're doing it under the table (and therefore not paying like other businesses), it's another problem solved under the proposed Executive Actions. Good news again.

You must feel really good that complaints you've lodged and corrections you've suggested in regards to the current system are being addressed by these Executive Actions. But, if you want to make their enforcement easier and more effective by establishing that gun registry you always put forth, that's gonna have to wait. It's not being proposed.

Dear Hair and F.U.

You can consider the gun registry issue being resolved. I have printed a bunch of forms and will, with a few hundred neighbors and college students, circulate a petition for gun registration. I won't provide a sample here of the proposed form, but it would look similar to a car registration form. Date purchased, VIN/Serial #, license #, insurance coverage, and note if you have transferred ownership to another party..... I dread knocking on doors, but somebody has to do it.

The trick and possibly the reasoning may be to require more background checks then understaff and under fund the agency that does the checks making it take a few months before any action is taken.
Remember this is the government and they tend to drag their feet and bury as much as possible in red tape to prevent expediency. I'm not sure if its done on purpose but it happens quite a bit.

Like buying up all the ammo through the social security dept. I think it was them that did that last time. Or was it the IRS.

(01-05-2016, 08:57 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Dear Hair and F.U.

You can consider the gun registry issue being resolved. I have printed a bunch of forms and will, with a few hundred neighbors and college students, circulate a petition for gun registration. I won't provide a sample here of the proposed form, but it would look similar to a car registration form. Date purchased, VIN/Serial #, license #, insurance coverage, and note if you have transferred ownership to another party..... I dread knocking on doors, but somebody has to do it.

Thank God. You'll be able to spread your vitriolic hate speech live and in person, but fortunately for the people subjected to your ranting, they'll be able to slam a door in your face. And guess what, I'm quite comfortable living in America with my fellow Americans who TOLERATE the opinions of others.

I'm truly grateful I don't have the "common sense" to be as short sighted as people that advocate government control of guns. Go back to facebook.