More Dishonesty From Joan

She wants to hide her intentions:

Could the reason for this unreasonable resistance be that requiring background checks on all sales is an inconvenience? Not compared to burying your small child whose body was riddled with bullet holes. Could it be that some of these folks can’t pass a background check? I hope not. Could it be that private sellers don’t want to bother with paper work and the regulations that would go with the National Instant Check System? Since most businesses have to prove that they are operating in a safe and legal manner and not doing anything deemed unsafe to customers or taking advantage of customers, that would be a dangerous reason. Money? Would private sellers make less money if they had to follow procedures that licensed dealers now follow? In what way? Or do private sellers actually understand that they are selling guns to some folks who should not have them but it doesn’t matter to them as long as them make a sale? That would be serious.

Umm, Joan, you yourself have openly been in favor of confiscation, your compatriots in political office are in favor of confiscation. By requiring all sales to go through government channels you can build up a registry of both new guns being sold, as well as older guns being sold, or transferred via a departed gun owner’s estate. Then all you need is to send in armed agents to confiscate the guns.

Sure, when I sell guns I don’t want, I do it privately to allow the buyer to obtain the gun for a LOWER price than buying from a dealer who needs to pay employees and overhead costs, and for a HIGHER price for me who won’t be able to get as much when selling to a store, or paying transfer fees to cover the time and overhead of the shop dealing with me and my buyer.

But the real danger is confiscation, and you can say it all you want that you have no interest in taking our guns away, because you have both said you’re interested in confiscation, as well as support people who have said the same.

You ARE coming for our guns, and your dishonesty means we won’t play with you, nor will we compromise, even if the latest bill does not contain wording for confiscation, because that is your end goal.

Oh and she also cites that BS MAIG poll AGAIN. It isn’t true, but BOY they keep citing it.

Lastly I’ll end with her take on the debate:

Dear Jeff, I will not publish any more of your ludicrous comments. I only published this one as a prime example of the craziest of the fear and paranoia existing in America. Your comments, I believe, are called treason.

This is what we’re dealing with!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Safety, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to More Dishonesty From Joan

  1. Cargosquid says:

    Proof that she is NOT in favor of universal background checks? She’s against any system that allows checks without going through an FFL.

    How about one gets a check when you get your license or ID? Then, if you get adjudicated and prohibited, you get a different ID. Then, when you show your ID to the seller…all is good.

    She’d never accept it.

  2. Cargosquid says:

    Her delusions are amazing. Faced with quotes from politicians that various forms of confiscations are not only possible, but are being considered…in the same paragraph where she acknowledges, however slightly, that PERHAPS, some on her side are considering confiscation, she then says “nobody is coming for your guns.” Amazing.

    Why do I get a sense that her job is to say, “nice doggie, no one’s going to hurt you.” while someone creeps up from behind with a club?

  3. AZRon says:

    One reply at the link started with: “We don’t allow you to drive 90 miles an hour just because you haven’t had an accident yet. ”

    No, but we DO allow you to own a vehicle capable of grossly exceeding that speed. And it doesn’t require any extra training or registration requirements. It can also be sold in a private transaction.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Yeah that’s Dog Gone, who’s a great combination of stupid and Smarmy. My old truck had a governor at 86 MPH, my new car I got up to 115 on an open stretch of highway before I decided that if there was a governor, I didn’t want to meet him.

      Also I was told the Governor was put in because of the speed rating of my tires, not any sort of speed limits.

      This is why I’m 100% for permit-less carry. The piece of paper does NOTHING, and infractions of that piece of paper are minor. But if somebody starts waiving a gun around, or shooting at innocent people, then we’re looking are serious jail time. Same with if I got caught doing 115 in a 75mph speed zone. Laws don’t stop behavior, they punish violations.

      • Scott Henrichs says:

        After reading several pieces written by DogGone I suspect, based on the linguistics, that they also post under the name democommie on mikeynumbers site. I may be wrong but the verbiage is really similar. Funny how they have to use different names to make their slim numbers look larger.

        • Weerd Beard says:

          Same person. They support from devoted gun control activists can be measured in the tens.

          And even then they’ll never share a table for an evening on a DARE.

          I remember back when Jadegold and Laci the Dog were both heavy contributors to Micky-Number’s site, and he left them in charge when he flew from Rome, to New Jersey for a vacation.

          Jade is in Maryland, Bannerman was in Philly. New Jersey was right in the middle. You’d think he’d want to meet up with his business partn,ers, since he was so close.

          Nope, they hate each other as much as they hate us.

  4. Eck! says:

    And we are surprised how?

    She doesn’t know what real and not.

    Eck!

  5. Bob S. says:

    I have to wonder if she is for outlawing private sales because it will shift the burden of proof to the individual.

    Now the government has to show a seller knowingly sold a firearm to a prohibited person. With no private sales, the individual will have to be able to prove they conducted the check in order to avoid prosecution.

    Just one more example of everyone’s guilty until proven innocent mentality from the antis.

  6. Stuart the Viking says:

    I think I would be ok with a universal background check as long as long as the following conditions are met:

    – It’s FREE to everyone. Toll free number, and no charge for the check. And everyone is allowed to use it. I would go so far as to say that since what the seller gets is a simple Yes or No, and the data used to decide this Yes or No isn’t divulged, it should be perfectly fine for anyone to do a check on anyone even if they aren’t buying/selling a firearm. On a personal level, I have taken friends to the range that I would have liked to have been able to do such a check on before-hand. Most friends have lives before you ever meet them and there is no telling where that life lead them. Needless to say, I have had some rough friends over the years, most of them were good people, but I had to question if they were always good people or if that was a more recent development. It would surprise you the number of people who have been to jail.

    – No firearm information is required by the system. A “Yes, this person is OK” or a “No, this person is restricted” doesn’t require that the government know what KIND of firearm is in question. Only personal identification information is needed.

    – A quick, easy system is put in place to appeal a No, and the system would have to have a way of making it so that a false No condition can be fixed and not happen again. This should also be completely free of charge.

    – All records of the call are expunged as soon as the call disconnects. Written in the law that creates this would have to be some pretty severe penalties for anyone causing call data to be kept in any way. Serious protections need to be put in place for this as many of the arguments against such a system are because it would allow the government to construct a registry of gun owners. Make no mistake, any creation of a registry of gun owners using this system would be a complete non-starter.

    – Redundant systems are set up to keep up with call volume, natural disasters, Obama elections, or anything else that might cause the system to stop working. If for some reason the system is unreachable, the law would have to allow the seller to legally assume an automatic YES. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If NICS is down, then proof that someone is prohibited isn’t possible. Therefore, they are innocent, and the sale can continue.

    – All other forms of infringement would stop. Since there would presumably be no more un-checked sales of firearms, then Assault Weapons Bans, magazine capacity restrictions, “clip” capacity restrictions (although I have never seen an ammunition clip that held more than 10 rounds anyway), as well as any thing else. Even the restrictions on NFA items (silencers, machine guns, etc.), would no longer be needed. The current FFL system could also go away since anyone could use (and would be required to use) the system, the whole idea of an FFL would be outdated.

    Now, I’m not an idiot (in spite of what you may have heard). I know that the antis would never agree to any of these requirements, so I’m not holding my breath. I will also state that this list of requirements may grow as I find other things that should be there. This, however, is the bare minimum I would agree to.

    s

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I’m 100% behind you as well. Also with no sale information it isn’t nessesary to to worry about the information, as the system could be used for all things. Every time I’ve started a serious job I’ve submitted to a background check. With a system like this just a NICS check is needed, and the more intrusive (and expensive) check for those who flunk the NICS. Same with a neighbor who wants to borrow my car, or other things. Same for somebody wanting to head to the range.

      There’s so much spam there, it would be impossible to track gun sales in a useful way.

      I have no interest in selling to a prohibited person (tho I would prefer vast swaths of GCA 68 be removed). And would love an easy way for all to do it, like we have in Massachusetts. If they can present a valid LTC, they can buy a gun.

      Another option would be simply putting a NICS approval endorsement on a driver’s licence or other state ID. Just like carry permits, to get it you need to be clean, if you mess up, they take it away.

      But of course the antis would never agree to it because it doesn’t allow for confiscating guns, or banning sales.

      That’s their goal.

    • Bob S. says:

      I’ll argue against outlawing private sales because of the burden of proof issue.

      If a firearm is used by someone after an individual sold it, the prosecutor (legally or not, morally or not) will make it a point of contention if the former owner can not prove the background check was done.

      This will force people to prove they followed the law instead of the prosecutor having to prove they didn’t.

      On a personal level, I have taken friends to the range that I would have liked to have been able to do such a check on before-hand.

      There are many public databases and sites that allow individuals to conduct their own background/criminal history checks. I’ve used PublicData.com for several years now for that purpose.

      • Weerd Beard says:

        I agree, Bob. Still this is a bit like arguing if the 2nd Amendment allows for Claymore Mines.

        This would be worth a LONG discussion if laws were proposed, but as we know, the antis ONLY want private sale outlawed so they can first Choke the gun industry by revoking FFL permits through policy changes and by citing simple clerical errors as “Negligent”, and then using the collected data for door-to-door confiscation.

        Even that won’t catch ALL the guns, but I suspect it will do enough to render Americans toothless enough to roll over on.

    • TS says:

      One more caveat for me. Under no circumstances can it be considered a crime to sell a gun to a person who is not prohibited. This is what Japete doesn’t get. I have explained it to her dozens of times and she can never see the point of view that a gun owner might find it objectionable to be thrown in prison for selling a gun to another perfectly legal gun owner.

      • Stuart the Viking says:

        Wow, that is so common sense that it never occurred to me that it needed to be in there. Yes, we could add that:

        – No person shall be considered guilty of a crime when that person calls for a check and sells a firearm to any person on the advice of a Yes answer from said check, regardless of what the buyer does with said firearm afterward.

        s

        • TS says:

          Na, under that wording someone could still be thrown in jail for selling to another legal person for the sole reason that they did not do a background check. What I am saying is that if you want to sell to your cousin, and you know you cousin is not prohibited because she just bought a gun, and you have known her your whole life. So you just sell her the gun without any kind of verification, and being the she is in fact not a prohibited person… under those circumstances we cannot allow a law that criminalizes the seller. Taking it a step further, if the seller didn’t know the buyer at all, and just wanted to roll the dice and do the sale without verification, and it turns out he was right that the buyer is legal… again no crime committed. I am ok with some reform that involves punishment to the seller, but it HAS to start with a transaction where a prohibited person obtains a gun.

          Essentially what I am saying is that under existing law it is illegal to sell a gun to a known prohibited person. Right now it is difficult to know (and also difficult to prosecute). I am ok with making it easier to know, and also easier to prosecute because there is an easy way to do your due diligence on the buyer. For privacy reasons, it should be the buyer who initiates the check and proves the “pass” to the buyer. Done. Common sense gun reform. Now let’s talk about reforming the NFA.

          • Stuart the Viking says:

            I’m sorry, I guess you didn’t understand. What my comment was about was making a compromise that everyone could live with. So yes, under what I lined out, you WOULD have to make the call and get the background check done on your Cousin, your Mom, or even your own Grandmother. Geesh! Were talking about a FREE 5 minute phone call for jebu’s sake. If you aren’t willing to make a free 5 minute phone call, then oops, I guess discussing NFA is going to be totally off the table because I wouldn’t want you to “roll the dice” on the NICS check and sell a machine gun to the next lunatic.

            s

  7. Rob Crawford says:

    Your comments, I believe, are called treason.

    No, @#$$%, they’re not. No statements are “treason”. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, and it’s not GD defined as “disagreeing with fascist tyrant wannabes”.

    (Pardon. Had to vent.)

    • Weerd Beard says:

      This is the drum being beaten by the Joyce Shell CSGV. They really like it because it works in a similar way for why they focus on the rare spree shooters, and ignore the common urban violence.

      For Spree shooters, they are rarely diagnosed as mentally ill, and certainly haven’t been committed. They have a clean criminal background, and they often get their guns legally.

      Because of this they can paint EVERYBODY as a potential spree killer, and demand we all be treated as such.

      The same goes for the whole “Treason” thing, where they conflate an awareness of the commonality of tyrany around the globe, and expressing a willingness to fight that tyrany, with people wanting to destroy a healthy government, such as terrorist groups.

      Again, it allows them an angle to treat us ALL like some of the worst of the criminal element.

      Still its also “Progressive” projection at its best. Think about it, who wants to ignore every aspect of the constitution, and strip every scrap of individial liberty from the citizens?

      What does that sound like to you?

  8. Pingback: Quote of the Day - Joe Huffman (01/15/2013) - The Minuteman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>