Hi Mike, 'And, as you say above,"Collectivists make up their own rules as needed!!" They also make up their own narratives to suit!!! eg. the sale from a private collection "on Line" sans "Background check!! As mentioned, the piece has to go to a FFL and he has to do a 4473. Please don't confuse them with facts or truth,,,,their feeble mind is made up!!!! Got Gunz.....OUTLAW!!!!, III%, skybill-out
January 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...
I will NOT comply. The president cannot make law. Therefore, it is unconstitutional on its face.
I'm sorry I am so tired of these circular arguments - "we propose these new intolerable acts because there exist no such acts" stupid response is "wait we ARE complying with existing intolerable acts which we assure you, DO exist". Better response is "we don't comply with existing intolerable acts and we certainly won't comply with any "new" ones". Or as Codrea says "no. Your move."
January 1, 2016 at 11:20 PM
Woodcanoe said...
It is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, "Rules for Radicals"!
Tell a lie today, tell a bigger one tomorrow and eventually people will believe it. Has worked for ALL despots in history!
This works SO well that the "liars" eventually even believe the lie themselves!
We can't compromise with them so we are ultimately going to have to fight them. I guess it is just a question of "when does this get so outrageous that we can't stand it anymore"?
WC
January 2, 2016 at 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...
Steve, that drive me nuts too. To me, the worst is when supposedly 'pro gun rights' people argue FOR carry permits. Each one of them conned into doing so, laughed at by all for doing so, not knowing they are conned or that everyone watching sees they are conned.
It is the same with the con of "defending" against possible semi auto bans, all while select fires, which technically ARE semi autos when switched to that position, are ALREADY banned. Why take the bait, why let THEM set the parameters of the debate by framing it around semi autos? Why not put the heat on THEM making the debate about select fires?
It really is maddening.
January 2, 2016 at 2:08 PM
A good friend in the firearm business sent me these links with the header, "The level of propaganda is telling." CBS News details: "Executive actions on gun control."His critique: "First this one (at CBS News). . . It states 'Sales made out of a person's private collection, many of which are done online, are not subject to background checks'". "Not entirely true and quite misleading. Any transfer across state lines requires the seller to send to an FFL in the buyer's state. As an FFL I routinely have firearms sent for a private sale. . . And yes, a NICS background check or a qualifying firearms permit negating that, an ATF form 4473 is completed and filed regardless.""The article goes on to suggest the president will quantify just how many firearms sales per year will mandate a Federal Firearms License if exceeded. . . (There are) unintended consequences of such a threshold imposed. Moreover it then states the obvious. . .Duh . . . If someone is required to apply for and receives a Federal Firearms License, any guns sold will require a background check (and a completed ATF form 4473)."He continues: "Then we have this from the Washington Post (do they even have fact checkers or editors there?)"The president will expand new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.""I guess the Washington Post nor the Office of President is aware that ANY gun dealer is required to not only do a background check (NICS) but also complete an ATF form 4473? Volume of sales is no matter. I make less than 50 firearms per year, yet I am required to have a Federal Firearms License.""This statement is flat out false and I challenge them to prove it:""Everytown spokeswoman Erika Soto Lamb, whose group was founded with Bloomberg’s support, said the current interpretation of what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms is “a hazy definition that allows high-volume sellers to transfer thousands of guns without background checks, no questions asked.”"I know better. Here in the (redacted) area a man attempted that. Was approached by ATF and advised to get a Federal Firearms License. He didn't and was promptly prosecuted for dealing without a license. I know others that were approached by ATF and were told 'get an FFL!' One currently still an FFL here. . ."
"Here is another 'where the hell is their fact checker or the editor?' moment.""The proposals the administration has been weighing include requiring federally-licensed gun dealers to report any lost and stolen guns to the National Crime Information Center.""ALL FFL's are required to report any loss or theft of a firearm. Please see the ATF website or for crying out loud use Google if you can't be bothered with that."
My conclusion? Of course the "truth" to collectivists is whatever advance the party line. Facts are immaterial.
"CBS News and Pravda on the Potomac parrot the party line on citizen disarmament."
6 Comments -
Why on earth would you want to confuse a collectivist with facts? You should know better than that...
January 1, 2016 at 11:55 AM
Hi Mike,
'And, as you say above,"Collectivists make up their own rules as needed!!" They also make up their own narratives to suit!!! eg. the sale from a private collection "on Line" sans "Background check!! As mentioned, the piece has to go to a FFL and he has to do a 4473. Please don't confuse them with facts or truth,,,,their feeble mind is made up!!!!
Got Gunz.....OUTLAW!!!!,
III%,
skybill-out
January 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM
I will NOT comply. The president cannot make law. Therefore, it is unconstitutional on its face.
January 1, 2016 at 1:09 PM
I'm sorry I am so tired of these circular arguments - "we propose these new intolerable acts because there exist no such acts" stupid response is "wait we ARE complying with existing intolerable acts which we assure you, DO exist". Better response is "we don't comply with existing intolerable acts and we certainly won't comply with any "new" ones". Or as Codrea says "no. Your move."
January 1, 2016 at 11:20 PM
It is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, "Rules for Radicals"!
Tell a lie today, tell a bigger one tomorrow and eventually people will believe it. Has worked for ALL despots in history!
This works SO well that the "liars" eventually even believe the lie themselves!
We can't compromise with them so we are ultimately going to have to fight them. I guess it is just a question of "when does this get so outrageous that we can't stand it anymore"?
WC
January 2, 2016 at 7:42 AM
Steve, that drive me nuts too.
To me, the worst is when supposedly 'pro gun rights' people argue FOR carry permits.
Each one of them conned into doing so, laughed at by all for doing so, not knowing they are conned or that everyone watching sees they are conned.
It is the same with the con of "defending" against possible semi auto bans, all while select fires, which technically ARE semi autos when switched to that position, are ALREADY banned. Why take the bait, why let THEM set the parameters of the debate by framing it around semi autos? Why not put the heat on THEM making the debate about select fires?
It really is maddening.
January 2, 2016 at 2:08 PM