So this guy from Chicago, shows up at a Florida Convenience store showing the clerk he has a gun. Clerk shows robber his gun. Yeah for 2nd amend.

[Hollie]

Well, Hunter Biden did lie. So did you. Here's a link to form 4473 which, BTW, you would have executed had you actually applied for a firearm permit.

ATF Form 4473 - Firearms Transaction Record Revisions | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

View the Updated ATF Form 4473 - Firearms Transaction Record (August 2023 Revisions) Notice Regarding Previous Changes to the ATF Form 4473 Due to new statutory requirements set forth in both the NICS Denial Notification Act and the Bipartisan Safer Community Act (BSCA), and to reflect the...

www.atf.gov

There's nothing on the form so''badly worded'' that would confuse a thinking human.

 

[Hollie]

Well, probably because he didn't lie. The question on that form is so badly worded that you'd literally have to be doing a line of coke on the form while filling it out to be lying.

Again, we don't have the prison space to lock up people for not filling out forms properly.



Uh, no, it's actually been right wing judges who had demanded we reduce the prison population. Brown v. Plata required California to release 30,000 prisoners to keep their prison capacity at 130% (it had been at 200%)



The Daily Caller? Really?



It accurately describes what happened in this country. We made prison a for-profit industry. We created the bullshit "War on Drugs" to put millions of people in prison, and companies made obscene profits off prison labor, prison services, etc.

View attachment 718078


Which is sensible. Penalizing poverty is not a solution. Now, if you send rich white kids to the same prisons you send poor black kids to, then we MIGHT have something to talk about.



Ooooh, George Soros... The quintessential bogeyman of the right.

I see your employing your usual tactic of denying the facts supplied to you.

Denial and deceit? Well, leftisexual, so I guess conspiracy theories serve your purpose.

An unattributed, unsourced graph? Really?

 

[JoeB131]

Well, Hunter Biden did lie. So did you. Here's a link to form 4473 which, BTW, you would have executed had you actually applied for a firearm permit.

This is the current revised form... What was the form back then?

21e is the item in question...

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Again, the way that is phrased, only would apply if you were using THAT DAY, not "EVER". It uses PRESENT TENSE, not PAST TENSE. So unless he was snorting coke on the form, he could honestly answer yes, if he was in serious denial of how bad his addiction problem was (as most addicts are.)

 

[Hollie]

This is the current revised form... What was the form back then?

21e is the item in question...

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Again, the way that is phrased, only would apply if you were using THAT DAY, not "EVER". It uses PRESENT TENSE, not PAST TENSE. So unless he was snorting coke on the form, he could honestly answer yes, if he was in serious denial of how bad his addiction problem was (as most addicts are.)

Again, had you actually applied for and filled out form 4473 you would have known that the questions are not confusing or ambiguous.

I get it. You want to defend the lowllfe and liar that is Hunter Biden by claiming your, and his, cognitive skills are lacking.

This is why we have form 4473. It's one measure to weed out those who should not own Firearms.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, had you actually applied for and filled out form 4473 you would have known that the questions are not confusing or ambiguous.

I get it. You want to defend the lowllfe and liar that is Hunter Biden by claiming your, and his, cognitive skills are lacking.

This is why we have form 4473. It's one measure to weed out those who should not own Firearms.

21e seems pretty ambiguous to me.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Okay, here's the problem. "Are you" not "have you ever been". I once smoked a joint in 1996. (I gagged on it, because I don't even smoke cigarettes). Am I disqualified under question 21e or not? I would think not, because it was 26 years ago, and I never used it again. And marijuana isn't illegal in my state anymore, although it was then.

In the case of Hunter, I have no idea how serious his drug use was, no matter how many fake crack pipes the Russians photoshopped into his selfies.

So he might have honestly thought, "Hey, I'm not using right now, haven't used in some time."

 

[Hollie]

21e seems pretty ambiguous to me.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Okay, here's the problem. "Are you" not "have you ever been". I once smoked a joint in 1996. (I gagged on it, because I don't even smoke cigarettes). Am I disqualified under question 21e or not? I would think not, because it was 26 years ago, and I never used it again. And marijuana isn't illegal in my state anymore, although it was then.

In the case of Hunter, I have no idea how serious his drug use was, no matter how many fake crack pipes the Russians photoshopped into his selfies.

So he might have honestly thought, "Hey, I'm not using right now, haven't used in some time."

I'm not surprised a simple, declarative statement leaves you completely befuddled.

 

[hadit]

My rule is that I post a link if I find something interesting.

I don't bother when a nitwit tells me "Prove the sky is blue", because that's just meant to bog down a debate making me prove every point, and frankly, why bother.

Not that I think the religious fanatics and the gun fetishists can be reasoned with. It's pretty clear they can't.

Ah, but you didn't say the sky is blue, you said the DC snipers passed background checks they should have failed and legally bought guns they should not have been allowed to buy. That's a very specific claim, and one you should easily be able to back up, if you could. The fact that you started ducking, dodging and weaving (then moving the goal posts) when I pressed you to back up that claim tells me that you either can't back it up or you know whatever source told you that is simply not believable. You already have a reputation for making things up and dodging when pressed on them and you're only making it worse. Unless you can back it up, this will join the cloud of other emotion-laden, disproven and debunked claims you've made on here and your already miniscule credibility will take yet another massive hit.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, but you didn't say the sky is blue, you said the DC snipers passed background checks they should have failed and legally bought guns they should not have been allowed to buy.

Exactly. That is the case. They were not allowed to buy guns (Because Mohammed was a felon and Malvo was a minor).

That's why a jury found the gun store and the gun maker liable for millions of dollars.

Johnson v. Bull's Eye | Brady

We need common-sense gun safety policies to lay the groundwork for a future free from the fear of gun violence.

www.bradyunited.org

 

[Hollie]

Exactly. That is the case. They were not allowed to buy guns (Because Mohammed was a felon and Malvo was a minor).

That's why a jury found the gun store and the gun maker liable for millions of dollars.

Johnson v. Bull's Eye | Brady

We need common-sense gun safety policies to lay the groundwork for a future free from the fear of gun violence.

www.bradyunited.org

Sorry to throw some facts at you but this wasn't a win for the anti-gun fetishists. The gun store, Bulls Eye, had violations of federal law. Like any other retailer, violation of federal law carries consequences.

The jury did not find either the gun store or the rifle manufacturer liable for ''millions of dollars''. There was a pre-trial settlement that identified monetary damages.

You might want to allow others to pre-screen / fact check your posts because you spend a lot of time making up your own version of invented history.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry to throw some facts at you but this wasn't a win for the anti-gun fetishists. The gun store, Bulls Eye, had violations of federal law. Like any other retailer, violation of federal law carries consequences.

The jury did not find either the gun store or the rifle manufacturer liable for ''millions of dollars''. There was a pre-trial settlement that identified monetary damages.

You might want to allow others to pre-screen / fact check your posts because you spend a lot of time making up your own version of invented history.

Did you actually read the article?

Here, I'll give you the GOOD Part.

After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session: Bull’s Eye would pay $2 million to the families, and Bushmaster would pay $568,000 out of its insurance policy.


Um, yeah, that's "millions" of dollars, as in more than one. The response of the Gun INdustry was to run off to Congress and insist on getting legal protections from lawsuits in the future.

You know, instead of changing their business practices.

 

[Hollie]

Did you actually read the article?

Here, I'll give you the GOOD Part.

After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session: Bull’s Eye would pay $2 million to the families, and Bushmaster would pay $568,000 out of its insurance policy.


Um, yeah, that's "millions" of dollars, as in more than one. The response of the Gun INdustry was to run off to Congress and insist on getting legal protections from lawsuits in the future.

You know, instead of changing their business practices.

Did you read what you wrote?

Here, let me help you. You wrote, ''That's why a jury found the gun store and the gun maker liable for millions of dollars.''



Did you read whet you cut and pasted?

Here, let me help you. You cut and pasted, ''After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session: Bull’s Eye would pay $2 million to the families, and Bushmaster would pay $568,000 out of its insurance policy''


You tend to be lacking in cognitive skills so I'm happy to assist. The jury did not assign liability for millions of dollars.

Read what you cut and pasted. It will help you concentrate.

''After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session....''

That should be clear enough even for you. Try actually learning some facts... and stop making up your own.

 

[hadit]

Exactly. That is the case. They were not allowed to buy guns (Because Mohammed was a felon and Malvo was a minor).

That's why a jury found the gun store and the gun maker liable for millions of dollars.

Johnson v. Bull's Eye | Brady

We need common-sense gun safety policies to lay the groundwork for a future free from the fear of gun violence.

www.bradyunited.org

I read that article, and nowhere did it indicate that the felons PASSED BACKGROUND CHECKS. That's what you claimed, remember?

 

[JoeB131]

Did you read what you wrote?

Here, let me help you. You wrote, ''That's why a jury found the gun store and the gun maker liable for millions of dollars.''



Did you read whet you cut and pasted?

Here, let me help you. You cut and pasted, ''After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session: Bull’s Eye would pay $2 million to the families, and Bushmaster would pay $568,000 out of its insurance policy''


You tend to be lacking in cognitive skills so I'm happy to assist. The jury did not assign liability for millions of dollars.

Read what you cut and pasted. It will help you concentrate.

''After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session....''

That should be clear enough even for you. Try actually learning some facts... and stop making up your own.

I know you are trying here.... but a jury is part of a court, and they were found liable. You think anyone gives away 2.5MM because they had a good day in court?

 

[JoeB131]

I read that article, and nowhere did it indicate that the felons PASSED BACKGROUND CHECKS. That's what you claimed, remember?

Not really. I said they were ineligible to buy guns, and were able to buy them anyway....

Of course, we don't know what happened because Bulls Eye didn't have any record of the sale even though that's REQUIRED. So we don't know if they sold them the guns under the table, or they punched it in and the name didn't come up, or they shredded the records after they found out who they sold it to.

Bull's eye tried to claim the guns were stolen, but that was just laughable. .

 

[Hollie]

I know you are trying here.... but a jury is part of a court, and they were found liable. You think anyone gives away 2.5MM because they had a good day in court?

I see the boat anchor of a false claim you made is tied to your ankle.

The jury made no assessment of monetary damages.

From the link, ''''After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session....''

You didn't understand the part about the parties agreeing to a settlement.

The jury did not assess monetary damages.

How is it you're so completely befuddled?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How is it you're so completely befuddled?

You seem to have misspelled “dishonest”.

 

[JoeB131]

From the link, ''''After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session....''

You didn't understand the part about the parties agreeing to a settlement.

I understood it perfectly well... the court found them liable, and they QUICKLY rushed off to get a settlement before Jury could hit them with an even higher penalty. Probably because their behavior was so egregious - letting weapons get out of their store and not having any records.

Then the gun industry rushed off to Congress and begged them for immunity from civil lawsuits.

If you allowed the victims of gun violence to sue the gun industry, you would be AMAZED how fast the gun industry would clean up their act.

 

[hadit]

Not really. I said they were ineligible to buy guns, and were able to buy them anyway....

Of course, we don't know what happened because Bulls Eye didn't have any record of the sale even though that's REQUIRED. So we don't know if they sold them the guns under the table, or they punched it in and the name didn't come up, or they shredded the records after they found out who they sold it to.

Bull's eye tried to claim the guns were stolen, but that was just laughable. .

That is factually incorrect. Go back and check the thread (I did). I said give us examples where people passed background checks with felonies on their records and bought guns. You said, "Sure, the DC snipers". Now you're trying to move the goal posts because you know you can't support your original claim. You specifically said they passed background checks they should not have been able to, and none of your subsequent claims support it.

You guys wanted background checks for anyone buying a gun from a store and now you're claiming they don't work. Which is it?

 

[JoeB131]

That is factually incorrect. Go back and check the thread (I did). I said give us examples where people passed background checks with felonies on their records and bought guns. You said, "Sure, the DC snipers".

The gun store paid 2 million dollars because the snipers bought a gun there despite being prohibited.

They work just fine when enforced... the problem is they aren't being enforced. There are no consequences for breaking a law, there's no point in having a law. So when you rush back to Congress and get a law passed immunizing you from civil liability, what is your incentive to obey the law?

 

[Hollie]

The gun store paid 2 million dollars because the snipers bought a gun there despite being prohibited.

They work just fine when enforced... the problem is they aren't being enforced. There are no consequences for breaking a law, there's no point in having a law. So when you rush back to Congress and get a law passed immunizing you from civil liability, what is your incentive to obey the law?

Well sure. Removing penalties for criminal behavior enables criminals.

That's a program that leftists don't understand.

Scores of Chicago violent crime suspects previously released on no bail in 2020

More than 30 individuals in Chicago accused of crimes ranging from murder, attempted murder, or violent firearm-related crimes were free on bail when they were initially charged last year.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

More than 30 individuals in Chicago accused of crimes ranging from murder, attempted murder, or violent firearm-related crimes were free on bail when they were initially charged last year.




There seems to be a syndrone of cognitive impairment that afflicts leftists.