Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....

[2aguy]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....


We want a fuck-load more than that, but we don't need you to tell us that you have guns, we already know...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns"

Because you're delusional, paranoid, and ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"they want to register all guns"

And this is a lie – no one of consequence or merit seeks to 'mandate' a Nation-wide 'registration' of firearms.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....


We want a fuck-load more than that, but we don't need you to tell us that you have guns, we already know...

who is "we?"......

 

[Harry Dresden]

"they want to register all guns"

And this is a lie – no one of consequence or merit seeks to 'mandate' a Nation-wide 'registration' of firearms.

back that up jones.....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....


We want a fuck-load more than that, but we don't need you to tell us that you have guns, we already know...

who is "we?"......

Your government.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....


We want a fuck-load more than that, but we don't need you to tell us that you have guns, we already know...

who is "we?"......

Your government.

which may be different next year.....and then you wont like the "we"....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....


We want a fuck-load more than that, but we don't need you to tell us that you have guns, we already know...

who is "we?"......

Your government.

which may be different next year.....and then you wont like the "we"....

I don't like the "we" that much now, and that changes nothing. "They" still know who "you" are...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why we don't trust those who want background checks on guns, they want to register all guns....


We want a fuck-load more than that, but we don't need you to tell us that you have guns, we already know...

who is "we?"......

Your government.

which may be different next year.....and then you wont like the "we"....

I don't like the "we" that much now, and that changes nothing. "They" still know who "you" are...

"they" have always known who "we" are....nothing new....

 

[Brain357]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

They fear the government, irrationally, like everything else mental infants fear.

 

[Brain357]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

They fear the government, irrationally, like everything else mental infants fear.

Why? The government seems to do a good job of protecting us. I'm certainly not afraid of being invaded. If I call 911 I'm confident help will come. They all claim to be law abiding, I don't see why the law abiding would fear the government.

 

[2aguy]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

It always leads to confiscation...every where there has been registration it ends up with confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia are just 3 examples and 2 are modern ones...

 

[Brain357]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

It always leads to confiscation...every where there has been registration it ends up with confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia are just 3 examples and 2 are modern ones...

You sound paranoid. You are also wrong. Israel has registration, that has not led to confiscation. Canada registration didn't either. I could go on.

 

[2aguy]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

It always leads to confiscation...every where there has been registration it ends up with confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia are just 3 examples and 2 are modern ones...

You sound paranoid. You are also wrong. Israel has registration, that has not led to confiscation. Canada registration didn't either. I could go on.

It took Germany 20 years, and Britain 94 to confiscate their guns...registration is the first step.....then, when they have the power, they take the guns.....

Israel can't confiscate their guns....they have muslims trying to murder them......

Canada coudn't register their guns...it cost too much to register 15 million long guns...and no one was complying.......Britain, Germany and Australians were too stupid, and did register their guns...and had their guns confiscated......and Britain..their gun crime didn't change, and Australia is experiencing increasing gun crime after the confiscation.

 

[Brain357]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

It always leads to confiscation...every where there has been registration it ends up with confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia are just 3 examples and 2 are modern ones...

You sound paranoid. You are also wrong. Israel has registration, that has not led to confiscation. Canada registration didn't either. I could go on.

It took Germany 20 years, and Britain 94 to confiscate their guns...registration is the first step.....then, when they have the power, they take the guns.....

Israel can't confiscate their guns....they have muslims trying to murder them......

Canada coudn't register their guns...it cost too much to register 15 million long guns...and no one was complying.......Britain, Germany and Australians were too stupid, and did register their guns...and had their guns confiscated......and Britain..their gun crime didn't change, and Australia is experiencing increasing gun crime after the confiscation.

You don't need registration to confiscate. Your claim is just silly. What country with a second amendment has ever had guns confiscated?

 

[2aguy]

This explains how they get to gun registration through the Manchin-Toomey background check legislation, even though they claim it prevents gun registration...

KORWIN: The Manchin-Toomey Gun Myth

Go to this link to find the full language (and wade through it) with the cool background. If enacted, 18 USC §923 would prevent “consolidating or centralizing” one type of record only, which government hasn’t got, by only one person. Getting around that is so easy it is tactfully enabled by the narrow scope. When a bill is written to really prohibit something, expansive language gets used so nothing escapes.
This bill should say no agency in any branch of government, nor any contractor or employee working in any capacity with the government, nor any foreign government or agency may establish a gun registry. Instead, it says the Attorney General may not. It doesn’t ban the Justice Dept., the FBI, the ATF. Officials will argue that by implication the AG includes anyone. Until it passes—when no such limit will be found, and “Attorney General” excludes her staff, obviously.
Nothing in the language even hints at preventing officials from recording, storing, collating, compiling, distributing, securing, retrieving, integrating, merging, using or backing up records forever, just no consolidating or centralizing. There’s no audit trail and no penalty for failing to comply.
The kicker: Manchin-Toomey requires you to get a background check for a private sale at a gun show, but it doesn’t require anybody to give you one. Doing a background check on someone you’re not selling a gun to is actually prohibited—a separate federal crime. Use of NICS is reserved to FFLs for prospective sales. You can’t look up your daughter’s boyfriend, or anything else, on pain of prison, fines and loss of license. Sloppy drafting? No—they’re asking us to accept myths.

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

It always leads to confiscation...every where there has been registration it ends up with confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia are just 3 examples and 2 are modern ones...

You sound paranoid. You are also wrong. Israel has registration, that has not led to confiscation. Canada registration didn't either. I could go on.

It took Germany 20 years, and Britain 94 to confiscate their guns...registration is the first step.....then, when they have the power, they take the guns.....

Israel can't confiscate their guns....they have muslims trying to murder them......

Canada coudn't register their guns...it cost too much to register 15 million long guns...and no one was complying.......Britain, Germany and Australians were too stupid, and did register their guns...and had their guns confiscated......and Britain..their gun crime didn't change, and Australia is experiencing increasing gun crime after the confiscation.

You don't need registration to confiscate. Your claim is just silly. What country with a second amendment has ever had guns confiscated?

There is no other country with a 2nd Amendment.....

And yes...you do need to register guns or you will not know where they are....they will be hidden by gun owners.

 

[Brain357]

I don't believe your claim. But if we have registration what do the law abiding care? It wouldn't take their guns.

It always leads to confiscation...every where there has been registration it ends up with confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia are just 3 examples and 2 are modern ones...

You sound paranoid. You are also wrong. Israel has registration, that has not led to confiscation. Canada registration didn't either. I could go on.

It took Germany 20 years, and Britain 94 to confiscate their guns...registration is the first step.....then, when they have the power, they take the guns.....

Israel can't confiscate their guns....they have muslims trying to murder them......

Canada coudn't register their guns...it cost too much to register 15 million long guns...and no one was complying.......Britain, Germany and Australians were too stupid, and did register their guns...and had their guns confiscated......and Britain..their gun crime didn't change, and Australia is experiencing increasing gun crime after the confiscation.

You don't need registration to confiscate. Your claim is just silly. What country with a second amendment has ever had guns confiscated?

There is no other country with a 2nd Amendment.....

And yes...you do need to register guns or you will not know where they are....they will be hidden by gun owners.

Oh so it has never happened in a country like ours. Thank you.

If guns became illegal the law abiding would turn them in.