Expanded background checks fails in Senate

Never said "no" guns are registered. Their assault weapons (actual full auto firearms) require registration, just like in the US.

Now you prove that sales between individuals requires registration. It was your assertion, it's your job to back it up. Good luck, because you're wrong. And no, a blog from someone's basement doesn't count.

I can prove it from Wiki, since you cited Wiki as the reliable source on this issue:

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller.

That is registration. A government required contract registering the gun, the seller, and the buyer.

So, please, shut the fuck up.

No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???
never mind that a record of a transaction regarding the purchase of a firearm held by the parties to that transaction in in no way shape or form the same a registering ownership of that firearm with the government.
:dunno:

He cannot help but be dishonest.
 
Never said "no" guns are registered. Their assault weapons (actual full auto firearms) require registration, just like in the US.

Now you prove that sales between individuals requires registration. It was your assertion, it's your job to back it up. Good luck, because you're wrong. And no, a blog from someone's basement doesn't count.

I can prove it from Wiki, since you cited Wiki as the reliable source on this issue:

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller.

That is registration. A government required contract registering the gun, the seller, and the buyer.

So, please, shut the fuck up.

No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???

You are expected to drive within the speed limit. You are expected to pay your taxes.

Again. shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Oh really?

Let's review:

Are guns registered in Switzerland?

Nope. To buy a gun from an individual in Switzerland, no permit is needed and registration is not required.

You are a sad little man. lol

Right, to buy from an individual, no registration is required. That's a fact. Do you not understand the concept of a qualifier in a sentence?

You need a permit in Switzerland to even own a gun in the first place you idiot. The exceptions are few.

Now it's permits. You started with registrations. There go those goalposts again.

You realize the thread is about background checks in America, right?

Idiot.

My original question was are guns registered in Switzerland? Why don't you answer the original question

Only those sold through a dealer. Person to person transfers do not require registration.

Tool.
 
I can prove it from Wiki, since you cited Wiki as the reliable source on this issue:

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller.

That is registration. A government required contract registering the gun, the seller, and the buyer.

So, please, shut the fuck up.

No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???

You are expected to drive within the speed limit. You are expected to pay your taxes

And there are penalties for not obeying those laws. Not the case with a personal transfer of a firearm in Switzerland.

Are you really this dumb? Really?

Again. shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, no.
 
I can prove it from Wiki, since you cited Wiki as the reliable source on this issue:

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller.

That is registration. A government required contract registering the gun, the seller, and the buyer.

So, please, shut the fuck up.

No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???
never mind that a record of a transaction regarding the purchase of a firearm held by the parties to that transaction in in no way shape or form the same a registering ownership of that firearm with the government.
:dunno:

He cannot help but be dishonest.

The truth and reality have no place in the delusional mind of this loon.
 
I can prove it from Wiki, since you cited Wiki as the reliable source on this issue:

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller.

That is registration. A government required contract registering the gun, the seller, and the buyer.

So, please, shut the fuck up.

No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???
never mind that a record of a transaction regarding the purchase of a firearm held by the parties to that transaction in in no way shape or form the same a registering ownership of that firearm with the government.
:dunno:

He cannot help but be dishonest.

It's a required contract that the government has legal access to.

All individuals in the Swiss militia also possess assault rifles that are REGISTERED.
 
No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???
never mind that a record of a transaction regarding the purchase of a firearm held by the parties to that transaction in in no way shape or form the same a registering ownership of that firearm with the government.
:dunno:

He cannot help but be dishonest.

It's a required contract that the government has legal access to.

All individuals in the Swiss militia also possess assault rifles that are REGISTERED.

Which is NOT registration. Fail, again.
 
Right, to buy from an individual, no registration is required. That's a fact. Do you not understand the concept of a qualifier in a sentence?

You need a permit in Switzerland to even own a gun in the first place you idiot. The exceptions are few.

Now it's permits. You started with registrations. There go those goalposts again.

You realize the thread is about background checks in America, right?

Idiot.

My original question was are guns registered in Switzerland? Why don't you answer the original question

Only those sold through a dealer. Person to person transfers do not require registration.

Tool.

Are you saying that the assault rifles that Swiss men in the militia keep in their homes are not registered? That the military keeps no record of them?

Prove that. lol
 
You need a permit in Switzerland to even own a gun in the first place you idiot. The exceptions are few.

Now it's permits. You started with registrations. There go those goalposts again.

You realize the thread is about background checks in America, right?

Idiot.

My original question was are guns registered in Switzerland? Why don't you answer the original question

Only those sold through a dealer. Person to person transfers do not require registration.

Tool.

Are you saying that the assault rifles that Swiss men in the militia keep in their homes are not registered? That the military keeps no record of them?

Prove that. lol

No, that's exactly the opposite of what I stated. I stated "Their assault weapons (actual full auto firearms) require registration, just like in the US."

My goodness, the stupid run really deep in you, doesn't it?
 
never mind that a record of a transaction regarding the purchase of a firearm held by the parties to that transaction in in no way shape or form the same a registering ownership of that firearm with the government.
:dunno:

He cannot help but be dishonest.

It's a required contract that the government has legal access to.

All individuals in the Swiss militia also possess assault rifles that are REGISTERED.

Which is NOT registration. Fail, again.
Emotion, ignorance, dishonesty.
 
Now it's permits. You started with registrations. There go those goalposts again.

You realize the thread is about background checks in America, right?

Idiot.



Only those sold through a dealer. Person to person transfers do not require registration.

Tool.

Are you saying that the assault rifles that Swiss men in the militia keep in their homes are not registered? That the military keeps no record of them?

Prove that. lol

No, that's exactly the opposite of what I stated. I stated "Their assault weapons (actual full auto firearms) require registration, just like in the US."

My goodness, the stupid run really deep in you, doesn't it?
Emotion, ignorance, dishonesty.
And they wonder why they've lost the argument on guns.
 
That supports my point entirely. It's not illegal to sell a gun to a felon if it's not known the person is a felon.

The more you expand background checks, the more felons you identify. Only the people who want felons to get guns can argue with that.
That's the stupidest shit you've said on this or any topic in quite some time....And that covers a lot of ground of stupidity. :lol:



The more you expand laws and regulations, the more formerly law-abiding citizens can be classified (and controlled) as criminals.

The law would have made me a criminal if I had sold one of my guns to a friend that I've known for 30 years without a background check.
Diagnosed as mentally ill was out the window and replaced with "mental disorder" in that Bill.
That would be a catch all term for almost anybody that went to a shrink at any time in their life.
I'm surprised that the Bill garnered as many votes as it did........unless they didn't read the damn Bill.
 
Last edited:
With all the rants and raves, let's take a look at the resolution:

S. 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013

Full Title - A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.

Full text @ Text of S. 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

I didn't read all of it but I get the idea why Senators rejected it is included in the provision for penalizing states for not fully implementing data bases and meshing them with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

I'm certain there are other goodies in there to further reduce individual rights.

And Dingy Harry only voted against it so he can bring it up again! :eusa_whistle:
 
That's the stupidest shit you've said on this or any topic in quite some time....And that covers a lot of ground of stupidity. :lol:



The more you expand laws and regulations, the more formerly law-abiding citizens can be classified (and controlled) as criminals.

The law would have made me a criminal if I had sold one of my guns to a friend that I've known for 30 years without a background check.
Diagnosed as mentally ill was out the window and replaced with "mental disorder" in that Bill.
That would be a catch all term for almost anybody that went to a shrink at any time in their life.
I'm surprised that the Bill garnered as many votes as it did........unless they didn't read the damn Bill.



That is the point. If everyone can be caught in a government net (often for things they didn't even know about), then the population is much easier to threaten and control.
 
The more you expand laws and regulations, the more formerly law-abiding citizens can be classified (and controlled) as criminals.

The law would have made me a criminal if I had sold one of my guns to a friend that I've known for 30 years without a background check.
Diagnosed as mentally ill was out the window and replaced with "mental disorder" in that Bill.
That would be a catch all term for almost anybody that went to a shrink at any time in their life.
I'm surprised that the Bill garnered as many votes as it did........unless they didn't read the damn Bill.



That is the point. If everyone can be caught in a government net (often for things they didn't even know about), then the population is much easier to threaten and control.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."
Atlas Shrugged
 
With all the rants and raves, let's take a look at the resolution:

S. 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013

Full Title - A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.

Full text @ Text of S. 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us

I didn't read all of it but I get the idea why Senators rejected it is included in the provision for penalizing states for not fully implementing data bases and meshing them with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

I'm certain there are other goodies in there to further reduce individual rights.

And Dingy Harry only voted against it so he can bring it up again! :eusa_whistle:


That whole bill gives more power to the Gov. and especially the Attorney General
If it had passed the Attorney General would be able to take away State Funds and would have given him power to write his own regulations.
That's all we needed, more power for one person to write regulations.
Look at the 7 foot 3 inch tall health care regulations made by Kathleen Sebelius and she is still not done yet.
 
Guns are registered in Switzerland at the local level. Cantons are the name of the local divisions of Switzerland. Not every gun is registered, but gun registry is in fact a fact in Switzerland.

So all of you assholes who tried to lie to me when I asked a simple question,

Are guns in Switzerland registered?

you may all now apologize for lying and then shut up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Swi....1,d.aWc&fp=bbc7b4edfaf51121&biw=1280&bih=610
 
No, it's not. "The seller is expected..."

Wasn't it you that argued if if it's not a requirement, it's effectively a pass on the law? Why, yes it was!

The irony is as thick with this one.

Lying liars gonna lie. What can you do???

You are expected to drive within the speed limit. You are expected to pay your taxes

And there are penalties for not obeying those laws. Not the case with a personal transfer of a firearm in Switzerland.

Are you really this dumb? Really?

Again. shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, no.

Prove there are no penalties in Switzerland for knowingly selling a gun to someone who is not eligible to buy one.

Prove it or shut up.
 
Guns are registered in Switzerland at the local level. Cantons are the name of the local divisions of Switzerland. Not every gun is registered, but gun registry is in fact a fact in Switzerland.

So all of you assholes who tried to lie to me when I asked a simple question,

Are guns in Switzerland registered?

you may all now apologize for lying and then shut up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Swi....1,d.aWc&fp=bbc7b4edfaf51121&biw=1280&bih=610

All firearms are not registered in Switzerland, nor are all required to be. So, you're lying...again.

Now slither away little...man?
 

Forum List

Back
Top