“Why are you gun fondlers so paranoid”, the snarky but uninformed “gun safety” parrots chant in smug unison. “Why do you oppose universal background checks?”
“It’s ‘Human Rights Activist’, you closet commie” I gently correct them. “And it’s because while the same criminals who aren’t going through background checks now aren’t going to start when they become ‘universal’, it will be used to compile a list of gun owners”.
“Pshaw”, they say, which surprises me, since I haven’t heard the word “pshaw” since I watched a Ma and Pa Kettle short when I was a little kid. “That’s just paranoid”.
And I respond “As usual, at best, you’re uninformed, and at worst, you’re lying“.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the go-to federal oversight agency, conducted an audit of ATF and found it does not remove certain identifiable information, despite the law explicitly mandating it do so. GAO conducted reviews for four data systems, and concluded at least two of ATF’s systems violated official protocols.
One of the data-collecting systems called Multiple Sales (MS) requires that multiple firearms purchased at once must be reported to ATF by the federal firearms licensee (FFL). ATF policy requires that the bureau internally removes particular data from multiple gun sales reports after two years if the firearm has not been traced to criminal activity. GAO found that ATF does not adhere to its own policy. In fact, “until May 2016, MS contained over 10,000 names that were not consistently deleted within the required 2 years.”
Every bit of information you give government gives government an opportunity to use it against you.
I saw this, briefly, on Drudge yesterday. Even the all powerful website might have gotten ‘encouraged’ to remove the link that the ATF is doing some really scary shit.
**Dog Bone with factually deficient retort in 3,2,1……**
And yet those states with better regulation of firearms have reduced gun violence and reduced gun crime. Those nations who have stricter gun control have fewer criminals with firearms. This is a previously debunked argument.
All guns start out as legal. It is gun owners who are responsible for their guns ending up in the hands of criminals. And please don’t tell me that those are all from theft; they aren’t. Many of them are sold without any kind of background check and without any concern for who buys them.
No change in government operating procedure, then. Back when the “I never had sexual relations with that woman” half of the Clintons signed the assault weapons ban part of the deal was that with the new instant background check these records would be purged on this timeline. The truth of the situation was about what you expect. The male half of the lyin’-Clinton brigade had the ATF keep all the records for his entire term for “test purposes.”
Utterly wrong.
I’ll demolish whatever the other commenters have left for me later.
You never ever really know what you’re talking about.
BTW – if I don’t see some response, I’ll be going back to whiting you out.
And yet those states with better regulation of firearms have reduced gun violence and reduced gun crime.
Dogpile, can you spell C H I C A G O? No, did not think so.
The male half of the lyin’-Clinton brigade had the ATF keep all the records for his entire term for “test purposes.”
Just because your paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. Sometimes well, occasionally at least, the tin foil hatters are right about stuff. I just wish they’d back off Boosh did 9/11 (yes I know Trump is courting that crowd, votes are votes) and Kennedy was killed by the CIA.
Here’s a link to the actual document issued by the GAO.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678091.pdf
As to DG’s legal analysis:
“All RAPES start out as legal sex. It is WOMEN who are responsible for BEING RAPED.”
“All SWINDLES start as legal investments. It is INNOCENTS who are responsible for BEING SWINDLED.”
“All ABORTIONS start as babies. It is CHILDREN who are responsible for BEING DISMEMBERED AND SOLD.”
On the wrong post, but I noticed you failed to mention that Rush limpdick had signed a contract with a company still digging out of bankruptcy – bankruptcy brought on by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital no less.
News yesterday suggests that Limbaugh is getting paid the same amount you are for at least the first six months of his new contract because I heart can’t afford to pay him ANYTHING. So hurray – you both make zip on the air; you’re in good company.
It also looks as if that 4 year contract is on a six month to six month basis, and might not run the whole term.
Also that multi-platform rubbish? Yeah, iheart is now running NPR news programming (so not conservative according to the right) and their new platform includes things like new syndication packages and podcasts. Big whoop.
That is the stink of failure coming off Limbaugh and Iheart.
Serendipity. Dog Gone drools and Breitbart mops up.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/02/chicago-deadliest-july-10-yrs-gun-control/
Many of them are sold without any kind of background check and without any concern for who buys them.
Can you cite any proof of this assertion? All the stats published are that nearly all guns involved in criminal acts are stolen and thus not subject to a background check. Or is it your muddle-headed assertion that suddenly criminals will sell to other criminals only with a background check because of your new law?
And as for legal purchases, it’s not as if strawman purchases where someone without a criminal record buys for someone with one aren’t already illegal. That strawman purchases are prosecuted about as often as ordinances against gay sex is more a commentary on prosecutorial priorities than anything else.
Those nations who have stricter gun control have fewer criminals with firearms.
Britain banned handguns.
After the ban, more than 160,000 law-abiding citizens gave up their handguns. The idea was to stop gun violence. But ironically, crime-related gun violence jumped a whopping 40 percent in the two years after the ban. And since then, gun crime has continued to soar at an alarming rate.
It continues to this day, with the violent crime rate also rising after the gun ban, and Britain now has a violent crime rate higher than the US.
Facts. Pshaw! They don’t fit the narrative nor comply with talking points hence they are lies! Lies, dammit!
And BradC calls it!
Nerd for the win!
So you won’t respond to questions to your arguments, but will carry on your “arguments” by jacking my threads?
That’s a good way to make yourself unwelcome, DG.
So I’m going back to whiting you out.
On the wrong post, but I noticed you failed to mention that Rush limpdick had signed a contract with a company still digging out of bankruptcy – bankruptcy brought on by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital no less.
News yesterday suggests that Limbaugh is getting paid the same amount you are for at least the first six months of his new contract because I heart can’t afford to pay him ANYTHING. So hurray – you both make zip on the air; you’re in good company.
It also looks as if that 4 year contract is on a six month to six month basis, and might not run the whole term.
Also that multi-platform rubbish? Yeah, iheart is now running NPR news programming (so not conservative according to the right) and their new platform includes things like new syndication packages and podcasts. Big whoop.
That is the stink of failure coming off Limbaugh and Iheart.
“Rush limpdick?” Y’know, there was once a time where I thought “she’s terrible with facts and logic, but at least she stays classy”. You left that behind long ago. It’s not an improvement.
If you’re looking for someone to defend iHeart’s management, you’ve come to the wrong place. iHeart and Cumulus are both extremely short-sighted companies hampered by a lot of decisions that turned out badly.
BTW, iHeart isn’t conservative; its portfolio of conservative and sports stations are what’s kept it afloat thus far. Their management swings rather to the left (and Cumulus is worse).
By the way – Clear Channel stations were the largest single outlet for Air America when they were on the air. Bet you didn’t know that.
As to the “no salary” bit – that’s not at all unusual these days. What that means is Limbaugh will be living off his endorsement and direct sales.
As to the six month options – that is just as likely at Limbaugh’s request as iHR’s. Limbaugh is much more likely to perform than iHR is.
By the way – I do get paid for my show, in addition to the odd talent fee. So time to reset the chanting points.
That smell of failure? That’s Dog Gone pretending to be an expert, yet again, and getting shot down.
By the way, DG – in the future, carry on discussions in the thread devoted to the topic. No more thread-jacking.
I’m asking nicely – once.
Aren’t all the big name radio guys (and a lot of the small ones) independent contractors? They buy airtime, use it to collect ears, then sell the ears to the highest bidder?
Who would write Rush Limbaugh a check?
Iheart has a market cap of 115.3 million $ (http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/IHRT?ltr=1). Limbaugh has that much in his personal petty cash drawer.
Bento – yes, they are.
It’s entirely possible – call this an educated guess – that Limbaugh (and Hannity and Beck) have more sales oomph on their own than iHeart has, and that each of them are basically using iHeart for the distribution channel.