I594 passes in Washington....

[roughdraft274]

its a simple question that is relevant to this issue

your evasiveness actually answers the question

you support gun registration and you support this law because it will help get registration

I'm not answering your question because you've done this in the past and it leads to no where. You just keep asking stupid questions that aren't related to the topic.

Me not answering has nothing to do with whether I support gun registration or not. Quit making **** up.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not answering your question because you've done this in the past and it leads to no where. You just keep asking stupid questions that aren't related to the topic.

Me not answering has nothing to do with whether I support gun registration or not. Quit making **** up.

why so scared to answer?

I NEVER hide my position on any gun control issue

 

[roughdraft274]

What has happened now is they have go9ne from a handgun registry of commercially sold weapons to an overall weapons registry. Its not all that fine a distinction.

It is existing law that they keep info on hand gun purchases. If your problem is that they do that then your beef isn't with this law, it's with whatever law put that into place.

You can't say that this law created something that already existed. Therefor Luther was wrong. If you're entire argument is now all handgun sales will have to adhere to the rules that previously only applied to commercial sales, then you are correct. But even then, if you didn't like those existing rules, that's not the fault of this law. To bring up things like "gun registries" is only to add confusion to a very black and white issue.

Your side realize they look silly opposing back ground checks, so they change the topic to gun registries and mythical tales of "you could be a felon if you let your friend inspect your gun".

Look at how hard your side is trying to change the subject in this thread. It's laughable.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is existing law that they keep info on hand gun purchases. If your problem is that they do that then your beef isn't with this law, it's with whatever law put that into place.

You can't say that this law created something that already existed. Therefor Luther was wrong. If you're entire argument is now all handgun sales will have to adhere to the rules that previously only applied to commercial sales, then you are correct. But even then, if you didn't like those existing rules, that's not the fault of this law. To bring up things like "gun registries" is only to add confusion to a very black and white issue.

Your side realize they look silly opposing back ground checks, so they change the topic to gun registries and mythical tales of "you could be a felon if you let your friend inspect your gun".

Look at how hard your side is trying to change the subject in this thread. It's laughable.

why is it silly to oppose a feel good law that has no benefits and will be used to demand additional restrictions

why is it silly to oppose a law that will make criminals out of people who do not objectively cause any harm by ignoring a stupid law

its already illegal for criminals to possess weapons so penalizing the actual objectively harmful activity is in place before this law was passed

 

[Crimefree]

This is a lie. I594 does nothing to create a registry for handguns.

I-594 doesn’t create a gun ‘registry’ but state’s data collection is one issue targeted by opponents | Election | The News Tribune

Now there is a fine example of an oppressive persons thoughts. Because we have a law that goes part way to official registration but aids no crime prevention it's OK to add a bit more which will also not aid crime prevention. Since it is a matter of privacy why not just send out a list of known felons to shops and save billions?

If gun control advocates were so interested in saving lives and preventing crime how come they are not fixing the KNOWN causes of crime? Is it crime and lives that interest them or the hate and fear guns? Which is it?

Collection on handgun sales was already in place before this law. And it is not a gun registration. You can complain that they keep this info, but they do not keep this info because of this law. It is something that was already in place.

I believe that is what is called ABUSING a law by government. Are you saying government is now to be trusted because it has this information due to abusing the law?

So check your facts before saying this stuff next time.

Okie dokie if you will do the same

 

[roughdraft274]

why so scared to answer?

I NEVER hide my position on any gun control issue

I've answered all your silly questions in other threads. This has nothing to do with being scared.

Typical TD, lie when possible and keep changing the subject.

 

[roughdraft274]

why is it silly to oppose a feel good law that has no benefits and will be used to demand additional restrictions

Opinion.

And if it weren't silly, your side wouldn't be chomping at the bit to change the subject to gun registries and other nonsense.

 

[TurtleDude]

I've answered all your silly questions in other threads. This has nothing to do with being scared.

Typical TD, lie when possible and keep changing the subject.

the main reason for this stupid law is to incrementally move towards more restrictions such as registration. one of the ways to prove this is to demonstrate that supporters of this stupid law support registration

WHY DO GUN CONTROL proponents have such reticence in admitting what they want?



why are you AFRAID TO ANSWER THIS EASY QUESTION?

 

[roughdraft274]

Are you saying government is now to be trusted because it has this information due to abusing the law?

I never advocated that the government should be keeping this information. Just more **** that you're making up. I merely said that it was already policy, it's not something that was created by this law.

If I had a nickel for everytime someone accused me of advocating gun control that I didn't really support I'd be rich.

 

[roughdraft274]

the main reason for this stupid law is to incrementally move towards more restrictions such as registration. one of the ways to prove this is to demonstrate that supporters of this stupid law support registration

WHY DO GUN CONTROL proponents have such reticence in admitting what they want?



why are you AFRAID TO ANSWER THIS EASY QUESTION?

I've already answered your questions in other threads dude. You can smack your caps lock key all you want. It won't make me care about your little temper tantrum.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's simply not comparable. In order to prove guilt now you must prove that the seller sold the gun even though he knew or was very suspicious that they buyer was a prohibited person. The new law makes it so that a back ground check must be performed so that it gets rid of the part where you must determine the state of mind of the seller, which is nearly impossible to show.

Under the old law, you'd basically have to have a case where the buyer said to the seller "yea I'm a felon so I'm searching for someone that will sell to me anyways" and the seller would say "sure heres a gun". Other than that it would be nearly impossible to prosecute. To call the laws comparable is laughable.

Not so fast there, Skippy. It is a federal offense to lie on form 4473, therefore one would expect that law would be enforced. It is not, so all we have accomplished is to deny that avenue of sale for a gun and to alert the person that they are not able to legally buy (or possess?) a gun. How does that, in any way, reduce crime?

 

[TurtleDude]

I've already answered your questions in other threads dude. You can smack your caps lock key all you want. It won't make me care about your little temper tantrum.

evasion is so prevalent among the anti gun side. why so evasive?

all we need is yes or no

 

[TurtleDude]

Not so fast there, Skippy. It is a federal offense to lie on form 4473, therefore one would expect that law would be enforced. It is not, so all we have accomplished is to deny that avenue of sale for a gun and to alert the person that they are not able to legally buy (or possess?) a gun. How does that, in any way, reduce crime?

in 21 years, less than one tenth of one percent of those who perjured themselves on 4473s have been prosecuted (BTW if you are denied you have LIED on the 4473 because if you admit you are a felon etc, the FFL doesn't even call the data base)

and in 21 years, there is no evidence that crime rates have been reduced due to the Brady law

 

[ttwtt78640]

in 21 years, less than one tenth of one percent of those who perjured themselves on 4473s have been prosecuted (BTW if you are denied you have LIED on the 4473 because if you admit you are a felon etc, the FFL doesn't even call the data base)

and in 21 years, there is no evidence that crime rates have been reduced due to the Brady law

That is precisely my point. The law is not designed to stop crime it is designed to get a list of LEGAL gun sales into a gov't database. The law says that even when when you pass the NICS BG check that the required information must be kept for 20 years "for review". This seems to be bass ackwards - let the "criminal" walk and keep the legal buyer information on file.

 

[roughdraft274]

Not so fast there, Skippy. It is a federal offense to lie on form 4473, therefore one would expect that law would be enforced. It is not, so all we have accomplished is to deny that avenue of sale for a gun and to alert the person that they are not able to legally buy (or possess?) a gun. How does that, in any way, reduce crime?

We are talking about sales that previously did not require a back ground check or any forms. Private sales didn't require any of that stuff.

But regardless, expanding back ground checks isn't for the purpose of arresting people that lied on the forms. It is for the purpose of them not being allowed to buy the guns without a back ground check, thus making it harder for them to get a gun. And even though there are very few prosecutions for lying on the form, I'd like to see info on people being prosecuted for not running a required back ground check before a purchase.

The fact that we don't prosecute enough people for lying on forms doesn't negate this law in any way. Should we not require ID to buy alcohol because we don't arrest kids that lie and say "I left my ID at home, but I'm over 21" to the cashier?

 

[roughdraft274]

evasion is so prevalent among the anti gun side. why so evasive?

all we need is yes or no

You consider debating people in a thread on gun control being "evasive"?


I don't care about your questions or your imagination. Learn to deal with it.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is precisely my point. The law is not designed to stop crime it is designed to get a list of LEGAL gun sales into a gov't database. The law says that even when when you pass the NICS BG check that the required information must be kept for 20 years "for review". This seems to be bass ackwards - let the "criminal" walk and keep the legal buyer information on file.

under the current system, the NICS organization has no idea what gun you bought

the ATF could put it together if they review the 4473s at a dealer but right now they cannot do that without cause

 

[TurtleDude]

You consider debating people in a thread on gun control being "evasive"?


I don't care about your questions or your imagination. Learn to deal with it.

I find it interesting that those who support gun control have such a hard time telling us what they really want. and why are they so guarded about their views on related gun control issues

its almost always because they pretend they don't want bans but they do or they support stuff that paves the way to bans

 

[Henrin]

Are we all talking about the same law? How can you guys be so butt hurt about back ground checks for gun purchases?

What happens when someones fails the background check?

 

[roughdraft274]

I find it interesting that those who support gun control have such a hard time telling us what they really want. and why are they so guarded about their views on related gun control issues

its almost always because they pretend they don't want bans but they do or they support stuff that paves the way to bans

Right, they never talk about what they want, yet you know exactly what all of them want.

You are one funny guy.

 

[roughdraft274]

What happens when someones fails the background check?

They don't get the gun...

Is this real life? Did you really need that question answered for you?

 

[TurtleDude]

They don't get the gun...

Is this real life? Did you really need that question answered for you?

In real life those who know they won't pass a check get the gun the same place they get drugs or stolen property

the people caught generally are not hard core felons but some guy who forgot that being busted for a joint 30 years ago was then a felony

 

[TurtleDude]

Right, they never talk about what they want, yet you know exactly what all of them want.

You are one funny guy.

in a court when someone refuses to answer a question, the judge usually instructs the jury to presume that the answer would be contrary to the interests of the refuser

 

[roughdraft274]

in a court when someone refuses to answer a question, the judge usually instructs the jury to presume that the answer would be contrary to the interests of the refuser

The judge would also not allow questions that aren't on topic.

You must be a wonderful lawyer...

 

[Henrin]

They don't get the gun...

Is this real life? Did you really need that question answered for you?

So then, what does the second amendment protect? Are you starting to get my point?