Mock

(01-05-2016, 11:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I don't want you to go back to Facebook blueberry; I like your feisty and intolerant posts and agree with some of your points.

But, I don't support a national gun registry or bans on gun types myself. I just don't agree with F.U. that unless there's a national gun registry, tightening up and expanding measures designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands is nothing but pointless bullshit for "gun grabbers", nor do I agree with Gunnar's insistence that the ATF is not qualified to continue reviewing and licensing firearms dealers.

There are posters here who have insisted during debate/discussion that they are rational and responsible gun owners or gun rights supporters who support universal background checks, stricter enforcement of laws designed to keep guns out of the wrong hands as much as possible, more focus on mental health in relation to gun violence, and more research into smart gun technology to help prevent accidental shootings by children and shootings carried out with stolen guns. Those are all actions being undertaken within the new proposal.

YET, some of those same posters are now objecting to the proposal even though it gives them what they claim they want and doesn't infringe on Second Amendment rights, don't include banning any types of guns or ammo, don't negatively impact legal gun owners/purchasers or dealers in any way, and don't open a gate to any "slippery slope" towards a gun registry.

Go figure.

(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.

(01-06-2016, 12:39 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really believe what you typed? Do you really think they are going to loosen the noose and make it easier for people to buy and sell guns? You have got to be joking or at least that is what I am reading through your sarcasm.
And yes, it is all about the money. Why else would they allow people to own fully automatic weapons, silencers, sbs, sbr, etc, well that is as long as they get there cut of the money pie. They do that and let the general population think they have outlawed those weapons. Its a win win for them. We matter not to them as long as they can keep the money train rolling along.
You seam like a smart person and then you go and post some shit like this and make me wonder if you are just fucking with me like I fuck with you , or not.

(01-06-2016, 12:43 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2016, 06:43 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2016, 12:43 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]

Why do you think that was a fake cry? Did someone tell you it was? Did you come to that conclusion on your own? If so, what made you think that? Are you projecting and by that I mean, is that what you would do in the same situation? I want to know just how the hell you have determined that he was being disingenuous. Thanks!

(01-06-2016, 02:19 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2016, 12:39 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Do you really believe what you typed? Do you really think they are going to loosen the noose and make it easier for people to buy and sell guns? You have got to be joking or at least that is what I am reading through your sarcasm.
And yes, it is all about the money. Why else would they allow people to own fully automatic weapons, silencers, sbs, sbr, etc, well that is as long as they get there cut of the money pie. They do that and let the general population think they have outlawed those weapons. Its a win win for them. We matter not to them as long as they can keep the money train rolling along.
You seam like a smart person and then you go and post some shit like this and make me wonder if you are just fucking with me like I fuck with you , or not.

You're contradicting yourself left and right, F.U..

The new proposals aren't making it easier for people to buy and sell guns. You've posted many times that it couldn't be any easier for people to illegally buy and sell guns than it is now. The new dealer-criteria proposal is aimed at making it harder to deal guns illegally under the radar or through non-traditional channels and easier to hold accountable people who attempt it.

If all gun control/safety proposals are motivated by money as you suggest, the government would want as many people subjected to them as possible, obviously. So, to answer your question, yes, they would really want to make it easier for people to buy and sell guns if your conspiracy theory is correct. I don't believe your conspiracy theory is correct though. Difference of opinion.

As for the fully automatic weapons that you claim the government covertly keeps legal in order to get a piece of some unidentified money pie, I don't believe that conspiracy theory is rational either. It's not exactly a secret that those items are restricted but legal to some and require registration with the ATF; that's openly documented and published. Your conspiracy theory makes even less sense in light of the proposed Executive Actions which, as I understand it, will ban some/all of those "most dangerous weapons" altogether. It the government was all about keeping them legal on the down low in order to make money, it defies reason that the government would be pushing to make them illegal.

So, yes, I believe what I typed and it's not a problem for me if you regard yourself as just too smart for me.

It's quite an accomplishment to fuck with someone for five years without her ever feeling it. But, if anyone can work a woman so hard for so long to accomplish nothing, I guess you've proven that you're the guy F.U.

(01-05-2016, 06:29 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

(01-06-2016, 12:23 PM)BigMark Wrote: [ -> ] GIFSoup

(01-06-2016, 09:09 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]HotD, they would have to lighten the rules a bit to make it possible for people to obtain a FFL. As it stands a kitchen table dealer is almost certain to be turned down when applying for a FFL. That is what I mean when I say they would have to make it easier to buy and sell.

(01-06-2016, 09:09 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the tax stamp guns go, they will never outlaw them completely. It just wont happen, I will bet on it. They would loose to much revenue if they did. I don't look at this as a conspiracy , I look at it as big business. A good portion of the general population is unaware that those are still legal to own when a tax is paid. Most people think they were outlawed.

(01-06-2016, 09:09 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]That being said, I did think about my post as I was in bed last night. I decided that maybe I was looking at this all wrong. maybe, just maybe this will all work. In fact I kinda hope it does. That way we don't ever have to deal with this subject again. Kind of a miracle cure is how I now look at this.

However in the back of my mind I have this hunch that it isn't. I have this feeling that it is just one step and soon the gun haters will be crying for another step. Its just the way it goes. They push for something and we push back, no matter how small a step is being discussed, because every step that is taken leads us to a gun registration and ban. But hey, that's taking us back to the slippery slope that the gun grabbers say wont happen.