Loony Lieberals Waste No Time

[Walter]

Feb 19, 2018 9:41:53 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Feb 17, 2018 22:46:00 GMT -5 Walter said:

I gave you examples and now you are quibbling.
The fact is laws exist that stop law abiding citizens to legally buy guns.

So how does that stop criminals from getting guns?
Thanks for admitting that gun laws only hurt the lawabidng citizens.

Awww....it's so sad that you cannot have your AR-15 with a 100 round magazine and a bump stock and laws that allow you to carry it around into restaurants, churchs, hotels and schools.
I am f-ing heartbroken over it. Boo-f-ing-hoo. That mean ol' government!
You are sooooo hurt by that! It just ain't right! I hope you can manage to get by with all that hurt you must endure.

[Deleted]

Feb 20, 2018 8:01:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 19, 2018 9:41:53 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

So how does that stop criminals from getting guns?
Thanks for admitting that gun laws only hurt the lawabidng citizens.

Awww....it's so sad that you cannot have your AR-15 with a 100 round magazine and a bump stock and laws that allow you to carry it around into restaurants, churchs, hotels and schools.
I am f-ing heartbroken over it. Boo-f-ing-hoo. That mean ol' government!
You are sooooo hurt by that! It just ain't right! I hope you can manage to get by with all that hurt you must endure.

Weird.

[daleko]

Feb 17, 2018 19:06:16 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 17, 2018 13:56:07 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Wrong. 
Tell the class what lawabiding person should not own or possess a firearm. 

IN CA, most folks who are found to be mentally incompetent, drug addicted, a danger to themselves or others, under court supervision either for mental issues or stuff like a restraining order, have made threats to licensed shrinks or LEOs, or have been dishonorably discharged from the military.

It is possible that none of those folks have actually broken any laws.

Off your point a bit but.... Cali law, as I understand it follows the Fed law but does expand it a bit. The BIG difference is that everyone in the chain has 1 business day to report a situation, adjudication, event, feeling/judgement, etc to the Cali DOJ system or law enforcement (who'll have 24 hrs to enter it into the Cali DOJ system). Once entered it'll pop a deny/delay immediately. That chain includes the courts, hospitals, doctors, licensed psychotherapists, clinics, etc. The reports from mental health facilities, the State Department of State Hospitals, and psychotherapists must be kept confidential, separate, and apart from other records maintained by Cali DOJ, and may only be used to determine a person’s eligibility to possess a firearm.

No federal law, however, requires states to report the identities of these individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which the FBI uses to perform background checks prior to firearm transfers. And therein lies the problem, as I understand it. States can't be forced to share mental health records across state lines or with .Gov. Or at the very least, many states are fighting that. Cali's system is obviously in Cali. I don't know but I'm not sure Cali shares w the Fed. Maybe they do. That resistance to sharing, by the states, complicates the issue a bit.

EDIT: Proposition 63, enacted by California voters in 2016, requires the state Department of Justice to report relevant prohibited person records to the FBI’s NICS system.

[Deleted]

Feb 20, 2018 8:01:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Feb 19, 2018 9:41:53 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

So how does that stop criminals from getting guns?
Thanks for admitting that gun laws only hurt the lawabidng citizens.

Awww....it's so sad that you cannot have your AR-15 with a 100 round magazine and a bump stock and laws that allow you to carry it around into restaurants, churchs, hotels and schools.
I am f-ing heartbroken over it. Boo-f-ing-hoo. That mean ol' government!
You are sooooo hurt by that! It just ain't right! I hope you can manage to get by with all that hurt you must endure.

I CAN have my AR-15 with 100 round magazine, and I CAN carry it around just about anywhere if I want to.  Private property owners can forbid it on their property, and of course we have the "no gun" laws in certain public buildings.
In full disclosure, I don't own an AR, but I have a semiauto 5.56 NATO rifle that is just as good as an AR.  I also have no interest in owning a 100 round mag at all.

I have no problem with banning those stupid bump stocks.  The gun works the same, with or without one.  If someone wants to shoot a gun machine-gun fast, he can jump the hoops and buy himself a REAL machine gun.  There's no federal law that says he can't.

Why do lieberals keep saying that civilians can't own fully-automatic small arms?

[Deleted]

Feb 20, 2018 21:38:21 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Feb 20, 2018 8:01:26 GMT -5 Walter said:

Awww....it's so sad that you cannot have your AR-15 with a 100 round magazine and a bump stock and laws that allow you to carry it around into restaurants, churchs, hotels and schools.
I am f-ing heartbroken over it. Boo-f-ing-hoo. That mean ol' government!
You are sooooo hurt by that! It just ain't right! I hope you can manage to get by with all that hurt you must endure.

I CAN have my AR-15 with 100 round magazine, and I CAN carry it around just about anywhere if I want to.  Private property owners can forbid it on their property, and of course we have the "no gun" laws in certain public buildings.
In full disclosure, I don't own an AR, but I have a semiauto 5.56 NATO rifle that is just as good as an AR.  I also have no interest in owning a 100 round mag at all.

I have no problem with banning those stupid bump stocks.  The gun works the same, with or without one.  If someone wants to shoot a gun machine-gun fast, he can jump the hoops and buy himself a REAL machine gun.  There's no federal law that says he can't.

Why do lieberals keep saying that civilians can't own fully-automatic small arms?

You mean only white people right?