Posted on 01/17/2013 10:05:22 PM PST by Nachum
During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said that the administration did not have the time to prosecute existing gun laws.
Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words to The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and the judge, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The Government was too damn busy, unless it was LaPierre doing the same thing to David Gregory of course.
Having a population with no guns allows Singapore to continue to be a crony capitalist dictatorship, IIRC.
lol good point-
Yes, he did but it won’t matter because ‘Rats are logic challenged.
To #11: Re “aren’t those laws already on the books”
To which Biden might say, “We don’t need no stinkin’ books”, nor the Constitution, nor existing laws, nor common sense.
I once liked Biden but his Svengali side has taken over and we can now see him for what he really is - a blithering idiot and Obama toadie without an original thought of his own.
Another puppet of the puppetmasters only I think one of his strings is broken.
My thought too. Why even have the form?
LLS
Joe just admitted that Mordor doesn't "have the time" or resources to enforce any type of gun registration or confiscation if We the People were to comply or ignore.
Ummmm .... I thought that the PURPOSE of a background check is to ensure that the submitted information was correct and truthful. And now Clueless Joe is saying that they can’t get that process straight?
I am positive that Joe bite me was chosen as veep as assassination insurance. Dumber than a box of rocks.
So Joe is telegraphing that the administration has no plans to prosecute the ATF's number 2 man for doing just that? Figures.
If the ATF won't police it's own, and can't enforce the law on the rest of us, how does Joe expect to enforce his gun grab?
So Joe is telegraphing that the administration has no plans to prosecute the ATF's number 2 man for doing just that? Figures.
If the ATF won't police it's own, and can't enforce the law on the rest of us, how does Joe expect to enforce his gun grab?
Asking a S-Pore friend the difference between USA freedom and Singapore freedom, his response was “theirs was freedom from crime”. Aside from owning a gun or chewing gum, its hard to argue he's wrong.
As pretty, safe, friendly and clean as Singapore is, I'll still take the USA any day, or at least Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore
“Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government. The People’s Action Party has won every election since self-government in 1959, and governs on the basis of a strong state and prioritising collective welfare over individual rights such as freedom of speech.”
“Amnesty International has said that some legal provisions conflict with the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that Singapore has “possibly the highest execution rate in the world relative to its population”.[37] The government has disputed Amnesty’s claims.[38] In a 2008 survey, international business executives believed Singapore, along with Hong Kong, had the best judicial system in Asia.[39] In 2011, in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index Singapore was ranked in the top countries surveyed in “Order and Security”, “Absence of Corruption”, and “Effective Criminal Justice”. However, it scored very low for both “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Assembly”.[40] All public gatherings of five or more people require police permits, and protests may only be legally held at Speakers’ Corner.[41]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
“Lee Kuan Yew”
“Lee Kuan Yew (born Harry Lee Kuan Yew, 16 September 1923[2]), GCMG, CH, is a Singaporean politician.[3][4][5][6] He was the first Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, governing for three decades. He is also widely recognized as the founding father of modern Singapore.”
Obama's 23 Imperial Orders sounded so reasonable, don't you agree? To moderate Republicans/'conservatives', how can you not try to save the innocent children?
My question is why Obama/his ilk always SOUND so vague yet so ever-over-reaching?
How does the Ed Morrissey'es of the world think expanding the current background check is agreeable in principle? Should any one else also go through a background check because they might possibly be in your house and thus have slight chance of access to your firearms? to what degree is reasonable to 'save the life of just one child' in Carney's words?
What if considerable numbers of people stopped paying income tax? Do you think the govt would have time to prosecute them? Or resources? :)
I firmly believe that if people don’t have the guts to organize for the purpose of reining in the govt by withdrawing the revenue, they don’t have the guts to organize to resist gun confiscation (at any speed, it is still pure confiscation). And without organizing, you’ll just get picked off one at a time.
Sounds good- but. The IRS and a host of other alphabet soup agencies were give virtual carte blanche by 'the Won' to go after tax evaders. Sure, they might let a few little fish go, but the IRS agents can and will come with law enforcement and make your (and anyone else's) life miserable. They come armed, they confiscate, they incarcerate.
Obamatron increased the numbers of agents. Bought them all lots of hollow point ammo, and are DARING you and anyone else to try. They WANT you to become a criminal so they can make an example of you.
Besides, so many are saying they will take a stand like we haven't seen since the Alamo. Surely they have the backbone and steady fingers to snap their purses shut?
I hasten to add it isn't entirely about tax rebellion or "evasion." One can as well avoid income tax legally, simply by ceasing to work, and announcing that one is accepting the hardship for patriotic reasons. So far, the government can't force anyone to keep working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.