Poll: Gun Legislation

FredHayek wrote: I have been at my local gun shop when he was tracing a gun for the police. The owner was able to find out who bought the gun from him but couldn't say what happened after it left his shop. So it looks like we do have partial traceability.

Having a store that keeps records of its sales to customers is hardly a national or state "database" ... But you knew that.

frogger wrote: And just an FYI. I never said this bill included a database. Just said I would not favor one..
Should I type more slowly or in caps?

Grady wrote: I selected no on the universal background checks. Not that I have a problem with background checks on gun sales, I do have a problem with government keeping records of who owns what firearms.

frogger wrote: I have to agree with Grady on this (by the way, Happy belated birthday)

So since Grady claims that the legislation requires government keeping records of who owns what firearms (when clearly it does not), and since you claim that you agree with Grady, it would seem that both of you are claiming that the bills set up a database of what firearms individuals own (even though it does not).

So maybe you should type more slowly if that would assist you in getting the actual facts rather than making up your own.

frogger wrote: Bummer...This thread started out pretty intelligent and then unfortunately slid off the cliff.....as usual.
I think it was a set up. LOL
Back to Bob's.

You mean before posters started making up facts that are not true. Bob's World is the place for you if you don't want to be challenged on false statements.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

frogger wrote: Bummer...This thread started out pretty intelligent and then unfortunately slid off the cliff.....as usual.
I think it was a set up. LOL
Back to Bob's.

You mean before posters started making up facts that are not true. Bob's World is the place for you if you don't want to be challenged on false statements.

LET ME TRY THIS FOR YOU AGAIN.

And just an FYI. I never said this bill included a database. Just said I would not favor one..
Should I type more slowly or in caps?

As I recall....the thread was pretty respectful until this......
(let me help you understand the disrespectful parts. They are in red) But you knew that...right?

And where does this bill or any other bill legislate the creation of a national or state database on who owns a gun? Because it does not, nor is there any consideration of doing so. This is typical nonsense, make up "facts" to create an outrage when those "facts" simply do not exist.

The big bad boogie man government is not coming for your guns. There is no gun registry. No one other than the entity from whom you purchased your firearm will know that you own it. Those are the facts.

Bob's place is nice to be because the disrespect level is under control there.
I can handle the challenge....just not the snarky.
Have a blessed evening.

edited to add......I just heard the splat at the bottom of the cliff.

[youtube:1tzpjyx6][/youtube:1tzpjyx6]

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: I have been at my local gun shop when he was tracing a gun for the police. The owner was able to find out who bought the gun from him but couldn't say what happened after it left his shop. So it looks like we do have partial traceability.

Having a store that keeps records of its sales to customers is hardly a national or state "database" ... But you knew that.

I didn't say it was, I was just providing some anecdotal information.

For every gun sold in the a store, the 4473 approval document filled out by the buyer has to be stored by the shop. If the shop loses its license or goes out of business IIRC they have to send all these forms into the ATF&E headquarters. But an interesting point, when the background check is called in, the CBI & Feds don't have a clue what guns you are buying or how many.

But if you do buy two or more guns at the same store in the same month, the gunstore is supposed to make a note of it.

frogger wrote: Bob's place is nice to be because the disrespect level is under control there.
I can handle the challenge....just not the snarky.

Bob's place appears to be "nicer" because it's a fact-free echo-chamber for Righties so they don't have to be challenged on their made-up nonsense. Yes, I can see where you feel safer there... What you can't handle is the TRUTH.



It's time to scamper back....

ahhhh channeling now. hahahaha

Bob's Burgers? There are a few lefties who post in there like Archer and the Dog.

But back on topic, I think both the background checks and the magazine ban will pass this year. But I believe the gun maker's lawsuit bill will have big trouble passing and even if it did, I think the Hick would veto it.

frogger wrote: ahhhh channeling now. hahahaha

Scamper back now to safety... hahahaha

frogger wrote: Bob's place is nice to be because the disrespect level is under control there.
I can handle the challenge....just not the snarky.
Have a blessed evening.

Really? I thought this post was a bit snarky, but then it was posted by a fellow righty, so no harm, no foul

Rick wrote: But I actually want all of Obama's brilliant ideas to go through so even the sheeple will see the light iin four years when none of it works.

Bob's place might be all sweetness and light, but only if you are of the "right" persuasion.