GUN CONTROL

[Vteckidd]

Since this is going to be the inevitable discussion after the massacre in Colorado, i wanted to make a thread here to discuss some of my "conservative" viewpoints and hear what the opposition has to say. Please keep it civil.

Im going to surprise a lot of liberals im sure, but ill get right to it.

Let me state that i do not believe in ANY RESTRICTIONS whatsoever to firearms sales outside the ones that already exist. Im not for Assault weapon banning or handgun banning. What I am for is accepting and admitting the scary circumstances that exist here in GA.

1) Private Gun Sales:
This is the most glaring issue involving firearms IMO. The private gun selling market is DANGEROUS to say the least and i dont think people realize just how dangerous it is. Georgia requires NO BILL OF SALE, NO FFL, NO 4473 for ANY SALE OF A PRIVATE WEAPON. This means you can walk in, legally purchase an AR15, walk out and sell it to anyone on the street as long as you have a "RESONABLE BELIEF SAID PERSON PURCHASING THE FIREARM IS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN ONE" which basically means "hey man, you a felon?". Why do we go through such great lengths to protect the initial sale of a firearm, but then stop caring the second it walks out of the door? What i propose:

-National Ban on all PRIVATE PERSON TO PERSON FIREARMS SALES
-All private sales must now go through a licensed gun dealer and the new owner fills out a new 4473
-Treat used guns as cars, IE they carry a title, that must be transferred from one owner to another via FFL/4473
-12 month amnesty to all people to come forward and "title" their used firearms, or provide a bill of sale that is notarized that predates new law.
-After 12 month amnesty, all firearms NOT registered to the current owner receives a penalty (up for debate). Something similar to "driving with no tag, not registering a car" but make it punitive like $1000

What this does:
It allows regular law abiding citizens to responsibly transfer their weapons from 1 person to the next. Its no different than what they submit to when they purchase a NEW weapon. Most gun stores charge a $15-20 charge to use their FFL or do the 4473, so at most its a minor cost to the new owner. It forces the new owner to fill out a 4473 and lets the DEALER decide if they are fit to own the weapon based upon that form (no different than if they bought a new weapon). It also makes the "background check" mandatory for any transfer of that firearm. It keeps unlawful people from owning a gun. It shrinks the pool of resources BAD GUYS can use. If they are no longer allowed to buy guns privately, it makes it harder for them to acquire weapons knowing they have to go through the standard Federal 4473 program like everyone else.

Will it stop all crime? no, will it force a little more responsibility and safety? yes. anyone who buys a new firearm has to submit to a background check and fill out a 4473, why shouldnt they do the same thing when buying a USED firearm?

thoughts?

[Whizbang]

the issue is thinking that "bad guys" give a crap about laws. Generally, the law they intend to break by using a gun out weighs any gun law measure. If someone really wants a gun, they WILL get one. For starters, a huge portion of guns would never get titled. They would sit in hiding places, or waist lines (espeically in low income, high crime rate areas). Hell, when i was living in Cleveland, some guy tried selling me a gun out of the trunk of his car. He had to have a least 12 guns in there, including what looked to be a Mac M119. Aside from that? Theft isnt too difficult either. The amount of people who dont use safes, leave the safes unlocker, or otherwise have the safe easilly open is rather high.

The only thing that tighter restrictions will do is make it tighter for the people who are not the problem in the first place. Sure, some evil doers use these loop holes to get ahold of weapons. But if they weren't there, I'd gaurentee they would still find themselves a gun. If not? They will use explosives, which the combinations to create are uncontrollable.

A good example that its the people not the guns is Sweden. Every male, i believe 18 to 40 is required to keep a firearm in their house, as issued by the government. And they have almost zero gun incidents.

so the problem isnt the gun. Its the people. By restricting the guns, they will find another way (or even still a gun). Think prohibiation and how that worked out.

[Sinfix_15]

I would not agree with this. How would putting a title on a gun prevent a crime like this? There's no way to prevent random acts of violence. Under this process, the theater shooter would have registered his guns legally, the same way he followed the current legal process, then took his registered guns to the theater and shot someone. This crime wasnt a gang banger who bought some guns out of the trunk of a caddy and if it was, those gang bangers arent gonna care about following this law anyways.

also, what good would having this information be to the police? so they know who the gun belongs to, that's only going to assist them AFTER the crime takes place. It's not going to prevent any crimes. How is this not going to turn into an intrusion of privacy? Lets say i go down to my local gun shop and buy 5 AR15s, is that gonna flag me in their system? The tree hugging hippies on the left think anyone who owns 2-3 guns is a war monger, what are they gonna say when people start registering their 200 gun collections. When the police compile a list of information on gun owners, how could they possibly use any of this information to prevent crime without profiling? The person who owns 1 pistol could be planning and a crime and the person who owns 10 AR15s could have them on display in his basement collecting dust.

I see no benefit from this, only hassle.

The solution to the problem is to get the left to take off their rose colored glasses and see this for what it is..... get fat fucks like Micheal Moore to stop doing interviews about gun control.

[.blank cd]

I'm gonna have to be the leftist in the room on this one. Everything Vteckidd said is a good idea, but I'm definitely not against some tighter regulation on assault weapons, even up to an outright ban.

[thepolecat]

I am fairly liberal, but I do not feel new restrictions are needed. What we have in place is plenty. I have worked selling guns and restricting the good honest people that are regular buyers is not the problem. Criminals will get their hands on guns and would not be through reputable businessmen.

If I want to own a gun and I am a good honest person then I do not want anyone to tell me I can not have one... especially my government.

Like I said though, I generally align with a more liberal stance... this just is not one of those times.

[chaseamundo]

I see both sides here and agree with both in some ways.
As long as I am allowed to carry a concealed weapon for moments when people go crazy, then i won't care what law is passed. I just want to defend myself/others from the stupid fucks/gangbangers that take advantage of people because they "can".

[geoff]

I see the point Sinfix is making. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to arm themselves to committ a crime. Ban the guns and they will then use a car to take people out. How about stricter consequences for using fire arms in a crime? Like this guy Holmes, after he is proven guilty, expedite the process and put him to death ASAP. Don't keep him and those who use guns for murder on death row for 10+ years. That's a waste of tax payers hard earned money. Hang him, inject him, fry him, or even put his low life self in front of a firing squad, immediately after the trial. You pull a gun to committ a crime...mandatory 25 years without possibility of parole. You kill someone with a fire arm, death within a week of being found guilty. Also, no insanity plea for these pricks....no sane person could pull a well thought out massacre of this magnitude. While we are at it, how about mandatory 25 years with no parole for black market gun dealers? My final thought is this, how about a complete ban on high capacity drums? Why the hell does anyone need to be able to pump out 75+ rounds at a time?

I am a conservative and a gun owner as well as a member of the NRA. I own an ak made in Romania that complies with all government restrictions. My gun was also purchased legally at a gun show. I have no criminal background what so ever, not even a traffic violation. Who is anyone to tell me I can't own a fire arm? As far as assault rifles go, the ones available to civilians are all semi-automatic. No different then a standard hunting rifle, what you are suggesting blankcd is just stupid.

[bu villain]

Vtec's point seems pretty reasonable. I don't think it will have much of an impact on gun violence but even some is better than none.


the issue is thinking that "bad guys" give a crap about laws. Generally, the law they intend to break by using a gun out weighs any gun law measure. If someone really wants a gun, they WILL get one.
....By restricting the guns, they will find another way (or even still a gun). Think prohibiation and how that worked out.

The point isn't that it will stop bad guys from ever getting a gun. The point is that the good guys won't accidentally enable them. You are right that we can't completely stop criminals from getting guns but does that mean we should throw up our hands and not bother to take even the smallest steps? Only passing laws that no one will ever violate doesn't seem like a good way to govern.

[Vteckidd]

I never said it would prevent the Colorado massacre. But why would anyone be opposed to being more responsible tracking weapons?

[Vteckidd]

You already submit to a 4473 to purchase a new weapon, why not have the same requirements on used weapons?

Nothing changes, I'm not proposing any restrictions at all.

[nelson9995]

I agreee with Vteckidd

[TIGERJC]

I see the point Sinfix is making. Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to arm themselves to committ a crime. Ban the guns and they will then use a car to take people out. How about stricter consequences for using fire arms in a crime? Like this guy Holmes, after he is proven guilty, expedite the process and put him to death ASAP. Don't keep him and those who use guns for murder on death row for 10+ years. That's a waste of tax payers hard earned money. Hang him, inject him, fry him, or even put his low life self in front of a firing squad, immediately after the trial. You pull a gun to committ a crime...mandatory 25 years without possibility of parole. You kill someone with a fire arm, death within a week of being found guilty. Also, no insanity plea for these pricks....no sane person could pull a well thought out massacre of this magnitude. While we are at it, how about mandatory 25 years with no parole for black market gun dealers? My final thought is this, how about a complete ban on high capacity drums? Why the hell does anyone need to be able to pump out 75+ rounds at a time?

I am a conservative and a gun owner as well as a member of the NRA. I own an ak made in Romania that complies with all government restrictions. My gun was also purchased legally at a gun show. I have no criminal background what so ever, not even a traffic violation. Who is anyone to tell me I can't own a fire arm? As far as assault rifles go, the ones available to civilians are all semi-automatic. No different then a standard hunting rifle, what you are suggesting blankcd is just stupid.

LOL you're always talking about GOD this and GOD that, I guess your god is no match for a small piece of lead.

[nelson9995]

LOL you're always talking about GOD this and GOD that, I guess your god is no match for a small piece of lead.

From what I have previously read from Geoff, I would have never imagined he owned a weapon. Simply because most Christians believe God is more powerful than a gun, therefore they don't need one.

[BanginJimmy]

I am all for requiring a dealer to perform the necessary background checks and complete all necessary paperwork on person to person sales. I would also say that the law stipulate that gun dealers perform this function free of charge.

I would go a few steps further than you though.

Gun show sales are always brought to the forefront in this debate. My opinion is simple. If you have an FFL, you can take possession immediately. If you do not, a background check is still required. The internet is not hard to get to, especially with wireless networks and smart phones with hotspots. It cannot take more than a couple minutes to run the check right there in the booth. If it is the rare situation that the check cannot be run in the booth, then your new weapon is shipped to you.

Training is another issue that is neglected nearly everywhere. To purchase a gun, no training required. If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you are required to attend a gun safety course, no exceptions. Every range I have ever been to offers them at least once a month.

Finally, gun theft. Gun owners should be required to report the loss or theft of their guns. If you have more than 1 occurrence of gun theft in any 5 year period, you should be barred from purchasing a firearm until 5 years from the second occurrence. Stolen weapons are one of the primary ways guns get into the hands on criminals. Time to hold the gun owner responsible for securing his weapons.

[geoff]

Sure I believe that God protects His own. But He also gives us common sense. I don't expect angels to come down and smite those that would do me or my family harm. God is always the first line of defense, but we are also expected to watch out for ourselves as well. I have been robbed, therefore my desire to carry/have protection. This world is full of scumbags that disregard the Bible just as much as the U.S. laws.

[.blank cd]

Like this guy Holmes, after he is proven guilty, expedite the process and put him to death ASAP. Don't keep him and those who use guns for murder on death row for 10+ years. That's a waste of tax payers hard earned money. Hang him, inject him, fry him, or even put his low life self in front of a firing squad, immediately after the trial. You pull a gun to committ a crime...mandatory 25 years without possibility of parole. You kill someone with a fire arm, death within a week of being found guilty.Punish a crime with a crime. Sounds pretty Christ-like to me.


I am a conservative and a gun owner as well as a member of the NRA. I own an ak made in Romania that complies with all government restrictions. My gun was also purchased legally at a gun show. I have no criminal background what so ever, not even a traffic violation. Who is anyone to tell me I can't own a fire arm? As far as assault rifles go, the ones available to civilians are all semi-automatic. No different then a standard hunting rifle, what you are suggesting blankcd is just stupid.You sure sound like your typical uneducated conservative NRA member.

[Echonova]

A good example that its the people not the guns is Sweden. Every male, i believe 18 to 40 is required to keep a firearm in their house, as issued by the government. And they have almost zero gun incidents.

so the problem isnt the gun. Its the people. By restricting the guns, they will find another way (or even still a gun). Think prohibiation and how that worked out.If I'm thinking what you're thinking about, it's Switzerland... And since they have no standing military, males are part of a "Militia", receive training and have a fully automatic machine gun in their home. Currently there are about half a million fully auto machine guns in the country. Needless to say, home invasions do not happen in Switzerland.


I'm gonna have to be the leftist in the room on this one. Everything Vteckidd said is a good idea, but I'm definitely not against some tighter regulation on assault weapons, even up to an outright ban.The only thing that stops gun violence is the arrival of another gun.


I see both sides here and agree with both in some ways.
As long as I am allowed to carry a concealed weapon for moments when people go crazy, then i won't care what law is passed. I just want to defend myself/others from the stupid fucks/gangbangers that take advantage of people because they "can".You can't carry in a bar, or bank, or state/federal building. While I get what you are saying... You can never "protect yourself" at every occasion or time. Whatever "laws" that are passed only restrict the lawful.


I never said it would prevent the Colorado massacre. But why would anyone be opposed to being more responsible tracking weapons?Because a government that knows where the weapons are... Knows who to disarm first when that government turns oppressive.


LOL you're always talking about GOD this and GOD that, I guess your god is no match for a small piece of lead.We are all mortal, whether you "believe" in God or not. This thread is about "gun control", but good try at obfuscating the point.


From what I have previously read from Geoff, I would have never imagined he owned a weapon. Simply because most Christians believe God is more powerful than a gun, therefore they don't need one.~le sigh~

I like you, hope we can meet some day... But yeah, I'm guessing you had to be drunk when you posted this.


I am all for requiring a dealer to perform the necessary background checks and complete all necessary paperwork on person to person sales. I would also say that the law stipulate that gun dealers perform this function free of charge. I propose a law that you commit a portion of your day working for free.



I would go a few steps further than you though. Gun show sales are always brought to the forefront in this debate. My opinion is simple. If you have an FFL, you can take possession immediately. If you do not, a background check is still required. The internet is not hard to get to, especially with wireless networks and smart phones with hotspots. It cannot take more than a couple minutes to run the check right there in the booth. If it is the rare situation that the check cannot be run in the booth, then your new weapon is shipped to you. Agree on all but the "take a couple minutes part"... We are talking about dealing with government employees on the other end.


Training is another issue that is neglected nearly everywhere. To purchase a gun, no training required. If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you are required to attend a gun safety course, no exceptions. Every range I have ever been to offers them at least once a month. Agreed


Finally, gun theft. Gun owners should be required to report the loss or theft of their guns. If you have more than 1 occurrence of gun theft in any 5 year period, you should be barred from purchasing a firearm until 5 years from the second occurrence. Stolen weapons are one of the primary ways guns get into the hands on criminals. Time to hold the gun owner responsible for securing his weapons.I wouldn't report it stolen. Simple as that. If it happened to turn up with a dead body, then it was stolen out of my safe without my knowledge...I just learned out about it from the officer at my house. But again, let's punish the law abiding because they cause all the problems.



At the end of the day... An armed society, is a polite society. The stupid will weed themselves out early on. People need to stop looking to the "government" or "laws" to stop an injustice they see occurring before their eyes. How many people could have been saved if one person in that theater had been packing (and trained)?

Laws only stop the law abiding, and they are never the problem.










BTW: This guy that shot up the theater did it with government money. I propose we ban all government college grants to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

[Vteckidd]

You already submit to a 4473!!!!!!! The govt already knows who you are.

[Echonova]

You already submit to a 4473!!!!!!! The govt already knows who you are.You are assuming I have ever bought a gun from a dealer.

[Jcanady]

Echonova, you are very well informed and argue your point incredibly well. I wish every gun owner had the ideals you do. Unfortunately people are dumb and there is nothing we can do about it. The government will never tell me not to own or purchase a weapon unless I am a convicted felon. What happened that night is a complete tragedy. If there was at least one person with a concealed carry (and a TON of courage) this would have been less devastating. Punishment as follows for the person convicted... Every day you will put a revolver to your head and pull the trigger, it will go off at an undetermined time and date so you know how it feels. I have no problem spending my tax dollars in that manner.

[Vteckidd]

This is why its impossible to have conversations with people because they twist and put words in your mouth. Let me make myself PERFECTLY CLEAR.

I NEVER SAID THIS WILL STOP CRIMINALS, OR STOP SHOOTINGS, OR STOP MAD MEN FROM GUNNING INNOCENT PEOPLE DOWN. STOP MAKING THIS THE ISSUE, I NEVER EVEN SAID ANYTHING TO DO WITH COLORADO EXCEPT IT WOULD BE THE CATALYST FOR STARTING THIS CONVERSATION.

Once you realize that, and stop making that your counter argument, like I somehow said that this idea i have leads to no crime, you may continue reading.

I dont think anyone can rationally make the case that the Government doesnt know WHO YOU ARE. you have a drivers License? Pay taxes? Vote? The govt knows you. We already require people to fill out the mandatory 4473 at any gun dealer and everyone is in agreement that is ok. Its a MINOR form of protection. So if you agree with that, WHY DOES IT MATTER IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ON USED GUNS?

Echo, can you honestly , straight faced , tell me that you purposefully buy used guns to avoid "government detection"? Do we still believe Obama is going to march door to door and collect arms? Come on, that will NEVER happen. If you have a CCW, the govt knows who you are. Whats wrong with making sure those guns are in the hands of the people they were sold to? I see no big glaring problem here.

As a gun owner, you should be responsible for properly owning your firearm, and you should abide by rules that are required to PURCHASE a new firearm, all im asking is we extend that to USED guns.

[Vteckidd]

Imagine if we had 1 very very strict set of rules to say, purchase a new car, but anyone could buy a used car. Wouldnt that be the dumbest thing ever? WHY IS IT ACCEPTABLE when it comes to Firearms?

Why do we have the GUN SHOW loop holes?

I refuse to believe this right wing propaganda "THE GUBERMENT IS GONNA COME TAKE MY GUNZ" bullshit the NRA wants everyone to believe. It doesnt bother any of you guys that a person can purchase a firearm OFF THIS FORUM that is not supposed to own one? Why have rules at all then? Why not just sell AR15s at QT next to the beer and milk?

[Vteckidd]

I wouldn't report it stolen. Simple as that. If it happened to turn up with a dead body, then it was stolen out of my safe without my knowledge...I just learned out about it from the officer at my house. But again, let's punish the law abiding because they cause all the problems.
Instead of LEO wasting valuable time having to track you down and talk to you, they would know the gun was stolen. Its a waste of taxpayer money to have officers play the WHO OWNS WHAT GUN game. It slows them down, and wastes resources.



At the end of the day... An armed society, is a polite society. The stupid will weed themselves out early on. People need to stop looking to the "government" or "laws" to stop an injustice they see occurring before their eyes. How many people could have been saved if one person in that theater had been packing (and trained)?

Colorado is a CCW state, anyone is allowed to carry, and they could have been that night in that theater but they werent. So even if guns were legal across the board you cant guarantee anyone will actually carry or be ready to use it. That is the thing about bad men, they always have the jump on you because they are crazy, and are planning something you cant think of yet.

Fact is the last 4 major shooting massacres were all done with LEGALLY purchased weapons. Think about that. Logic would dictate stop selling the LEGAL weapons right? but i didnt say that. I just said make everyone go through the same process to own 1. That way LEO can focus on what they do best, tracking bad guys. Going after criminals.

[05dc5s]

Mike what is the purpose of tracking guns? Any measure we make will only be followed by the foolish and honest and those individuals you don't need any special measure for. You made the argument in another thread that if someone were in the theater with a weapon that it would not have stopped the incident and that some of the proposed measures would not have made a difference. Why would you propose the tracking of weapons and why further involving the government in matters that it has no business in? Why would you suggest giving any additional power or control to the Government when, as I have seen you say that, it already is doing so poorly and mishandling so many other things? This, or any action that, is suggested post this terribly tragic event is in my opinion entirely absurd. There are going to always exist terrible events, with tragic outcomes, that don't make sense because a crazy individual did something unexpected. In the aftermath of these sorts of things we don't need to make changes to things that would have no impact relevant to the action and further lesson personal freedoms.

[05dc5s]

Instead of LEO wasting valuable time having to track you down and talk to you, they would know the gun was stolen. Its a waste of taxpayer money to have officers play the WHO OWNS WHAT GUN game. It slows them down, and wastes resources.




Colorado is a CCW state, anyone is allowed to carry, and they could have been that night in that theater but they werent. So even if guns were legal across the board you cant guarantee anyone will actually carry or be ready to use it. That is the thing about bad men, they always have the jump on you because they are crazy, and are planning something you cant think of yet.

Fact is the last 4 major shooting massacres were all done with LEGALLY purchased weapons. Think about that. Logic would dictate stop selling the LEGAL weapons right? but i didnt say that. I just said make everyone go through the same process to own 1. That way LEO can focus on what they do best, tracking bad guys. Going after criminals.

I respect your opinion but I feel there is a hole in what you're saying. That or perhaps I don't understand your point.

Are you making the assertion that bad guys are always going to go around the law and in the same the breath stating that it would make it better to further restrict personal freedoms when it won't stop those that truly don't wish to follow them.

[Sinfix_15]

Imagine if we had 1 very very strict set of rules to say, purchase a new car, but anyone could buy a used car. Wouldnt that be the dumbest thing ever? WHY IS IT ACCEPTABLE when it comes to Firearms?

Why do we have the GUN SHOW loop holes?

I refuse to believe this right wing propaganda "THE GUBERMENT IS GONNA COME TAKE MY GUNZ" bullshit the NRA wants everyone to believe. It doesnt bother any of you guys that a person can purchase a firearm OFF THIS FORUM that is not supposed to own one? Why have rules at all then? Why not just sell AR15s at QT next to the beer and milk?

why not? why is an AR15 any different than a .22 rifle? The left tries to demonize guns. Theyre making such a big deal about the AR15.... "OMG WHY HOW WHY WHY WHY HOW did he get his hands on an AR15!!!!?!?!?"

I want a fucking triple barrel ar15 gatling gun powered by a gixxer engine with a suit case clip of exploding bullets. why do i want it? none of your fuckin business, this is america. Until i give you a reason to question me, dont. Everything the government touches gets fucked up, why you would to volunteer more power to them, i dont know.

You will never stop crime by passing new laws. Laws have zero effect on the criminals. Increase the punishment for people who commit crimes and quit adding more regulations to law abiding citizens. Armed robbery should be a life sentence, even if you steal a liter of pepsi with a pellet gun. If you walk into a liquor store filled with 5 occupants and rob the owner at gun point, even if no shots are fired.... you should be charged with 5 counts of attempted murder. The legal system is way too soft on criminals, diluting the law with more useless bullshit that effects normal citizens is not going to do anything but annoy people.

[geoff]

^again we agree. Well said.

[David88vert]

I refuse to believe this right wing propaganda "THE GUBERMENT IS GONNA COME TAKE MY GUNZ" bullshit the NRA wants everyone to believe.

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" - Paul Harvey, 1994

All of the genocides in in the last century started with the registration of firearms. Some required ammunition to be registered also. Once the government had its list of guns, it banned individuals from having them, and then seized them in bulk. This is history, and if you do not learn from it, you will be destined to repeat it.

1911 - Turkey instituted gun control. From 1915-1917, between 1-1.5 million Armenians, who no longer were allowed to have guns, were rounded up and killed. It is called the Armenian Genocide. It started with the requirement of obtaining a permit to have a gun, then became the banning of individual ownership.

1929 - The USSR instituted gun control. From 1929 - 1953, approximately 20 million unarmed dissidents were rounded up and killed.

1935 - Japan established gun control in China, and China continued it after the end of the Japanese oppression. From 1948 - 1952, under Mao's Communist regime, over 20 million unarmed dissidents were murdered.
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." - Mao Tse Tung

1938 - Germany instituted gun control. From 1939 - 1945, over 13 milion people (not just Jews), wer killed. These were unarmed people of different background, including gypsies, gays, Catholics, union leaders, and Jews.
Registration preceded the collection of firearms. Learn from history: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
And read Israel Guttman's book, "Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising", which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." - Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.


1956 - Cambodia instituted gun control. From 1975 - 1977, Pol Pot had over 1 million educated, but unarmed people murdered. These were law-abiding citizens who no longer were allowed to own firearms.

1964, Guatemala instituted gun control. From 1964 - 1981, over 100000 unarmed Mayan Indians were murdered by their government.

1970 - Uganda instituted gun control. Idi Amin had over 300000 unarmed people killed from 1971-1979. The reason was simply that they were Christians or political rivals. Today, in Uganda, the goverment continues to kil the Karamojong tribe in an effort to force complete disarment.

2006 - Darfur has UN-imposed gun control. Over 200000 unarmed citizens have been murdered. It has still not stopped.


In contrast, here is what our US founding fathers had to say on gun control. They were very explicit in that they passed the 2nd Amendment as a key amendment, and made certain that it is an individual right, not a state right.

"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

And most importantly:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

And you think that they aren't after your guns?

"When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly .... When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Former President Bill Clinton

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles...that we are unable to think about reality." - Former President Bill Clinton onUSA Today, March 11, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Currently serving Senator Dianne Feinstein on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

And what would Ghandi say? Oh wait, he already has...
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi, in Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446

[Vteckidd]

I guess i just think the american individual (WHO IS ALREADY ARMED) is smarter than to let the GUBERMENT come take our weapons. That will NEVER HAPPEN, NEVER.

[Vteckidd]

why not? why is an AR15 any different than a .22 rifle? The left tries to demonize guns. Theyre making such a big deal about the AR15.... "OMG WHY HOW WHY WHY WHY HOW did he get his hands on an AR15!!!!?!?!?"

A semi automatic AR15 is not the same as some bolt action .22 you used to shoot Quail with. Its much more powerful than that , cmon , you know your argument is invalid. I must have missed the point where i said we should BAN AR15s?


I want a fucking triple barrel ar15 gatling gun powered by a gixxer engine with a suit case clip of exploding bullets. why do i want it? none of your fuckin business, this is america. Until i give you a reason to question me, dont. Everything the government touches gets fucked up, why you would to volunteer more power to them, i dont know.

Bcause society as a whole agrees that is not acceptable. We already agree FULLY AUTO weapons should not be made available to the public. If you want to own one you have to go to the Tax stamp process and a much more thorough background check. So your argument is you should be allowed to own an Abrams tank if you want? A F22 raptor? Nuclear bomb? Why? because you say so? So i guess you believe Drunk driving should be allowed, why? BECAUSE I WANT TO DO IT!


You will never stop crime by passing new laws.

I STOPPED READING THERE BECAUSE I NEVER SAID I WAS TRYING TO STOP A CRIME.

READ WHAT I POSTED, ITS OBVIOUS YOU DIDNT.

[Vteckidd]

I respect your opinion but I feel there is a hole in what you're saying. That or perhaps I don't understand your point.

Are you making the assertion that bad guys are always going to go around the law and in the same the breath stating that it would make it better to further restrict personal freedoms when it won't stop those that truly don't wish to follow them.


Restricting freedoms? YOu mean by REQUIRING PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY ALREADY DO WHEN PURCHASING A NEW WEAPON?????? HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RESTRICTING FREEDOMS? JESUS CHRIST ITS LIKE BEATING MY HEAD AGAINST A WALL.

All im saying is USED GUNS should be treated as NEW GUNS. PERIOD. No banning, NO GOVT POWER EXPANSION, NO RIGHTS TRAMPLED, NO "IM COMING TO TAKE YOUR ARMS". JUST TREAT A USED GUN WITH THE SAME CARE AND REGISTERING AS A NEW WEAPON! WHats the big deal?

All im pointing out is the GLARING dangerous aspect that ANYONE can get a gun and circumvent the ATF rules and regulations by just purchasing on the used gun market. THAT DOESNT BOTHER ANY OF YOU PEOPLE?

NEVERMIND the culture we are breeding with these EVERYONE GETS A GUN mentality that brings on cases like Trayvon Martin , hell the kid in the ZOSICK thread saying "i would have blown dude away if he punched me". SERIOUSLY? We have devolved into a society that says OMG YOU CAME AT ME IM KILLING YOU? People cant take a punch anymore?

My point is that i understand LAWS dont stop bad people, Bad people will do what they want to do because if you want to kill someone, you will find a way. My point is, what is the harm in having the used gun market which is circumvented DAILY, follow the same rules as NEW WEAPONS purchases? It WOULD STOP SOME people who dont qualify to own a gun from getting one. That alone is good enough for me.

You guys have this stupid ALL OR NOTHING stance that is just mind boggling. "OH IT WONT STOP ALL CRIMINALS SO ITS STUPID, LETS NOT DO ANYTHING, AND IF WE DO THE GUBERMENT WILL COME TAKE MAI GUNZ".

[Sinfix_15]

A semi automatic AR15 is not the same as some bolt action .22 you used to shoot Quail with. Its much more powerful than that , cmon , you know your argument is invalid. I must have missed the point where i said we should BAN AR15s?



Bcause society as a whole agrees that is not acceptable. We already agree FULLY AUTO weapons should not be made available to the public. If you want to own one you have to go to the Tax stamp process and a much more thorough background check. So your argument is you should be allowed to own an Abrams tank if you want? A F22 raptor? Nuclear bomb? Why? because you say so? So i guess you believe Drunk driving should be allowed, why? BECAUSE I WANT TO DO IT!



I STOPPED READING THERE BECAUSE I NEVER SAID I WAS TRYING TO STOP A CRIME.

READ WHAT I POSTED, ITS OBVIOUS YOU DIDNT.

If youre not trying to stop crime, then what are you trying to accomplish? My first statement was just a generalized comment towards the subject matter of gun control being in the forefront because of the colorado shooting.

2nd statement was at you. If you feel your suggestion will not prevent crime, then what is the point? what do you seek to accomplish? what is the benefit of my annoyance? Why do you need to know anything about my gun deals if you already acknowledge that the information obtained cannot be used to prevent crime?



PS, gun below is 100% legal for anyone. and YES........ if i can afford a tank for my own private use, no reason i shouldnt have it. The US is the world's leading exporter of weapons, they sell guns to anyone who will pay for guns. The US can sell guns to Pakistan but you want to prevent me from buying a gun from my neighbor.......?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7tzaYgp5g&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s

[Vteckidd]

If youre not trying to stop crime, then what are you trying to accomplish? My first statement was just a generalized comment towards the subject matter of gun control being in the forefront because of the colorado shooting.

YOu know i respect your opinions we have had a ton of debates on here before. My point is, as a gun owner myself (I own MULTIPLE SEMI AUTO ASSAULT RIFLES including an FS2000 yeh c'mon) , i see the really really dangerous side of the gun owner debate. I thought other owners would see that too.

My position isnt "PASS LAWS STOP CRIMINALS" , my position is treat all firearms the same, and as an UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, we will remove a large pool of resources from potential bad guys. If anything, we make it EASIER for cops to track down weapons used illegally. Thats it.

Fact is if you have a wet dream of killing 100 people, i can think of 10239029301 ways to do it without using a gun. Im not dumb. The point that "we shouldnt pass laws because criminals dont abide by laws" is a totally valid argument, but why have speeding limits? Why have any laws at all if everyone thinks "they dont work".

All im asking is for USED guns to be treated the same as a PURCHASED FIREARM. I believe that citizens have a right to own firearms, but its RESPONSIBLE knowing what they are capable of doing to treat them all the same.


2nd statement was at you. If you feel your suggestion will not prevent crime, then what is the point? what do you seek to accomplish? what is the benefit of my annoyance? Why do you need to know anything about my gun deals if you already acknowledge that the information obtained cannot be used to prevent crime?
It wont prevent ALL CRIME, it will prevent people from owning a gun that isnt allowed to, and it will allow LEO to easily clarify who last owned the weapon. Thats it. its not even a HUGE deal, The GOVT is going to find out WHO YOU ARE if you buy a used gun anyway. Whats the big deal.

Like Echo said before "i purchase used guns so they dont know who i am" is a false argument. Federal laws state any gun sold has to have a serial number recorded and kept. If Echo bought a used gun, 99% of the time a BOS is filled out regardless. IN THE CASE THAT ITS NOT, LEO will trace the original sale and go person to person till the gun is recovered. Sure there are cases where maybe 5-10 years later the trail goes cold and you can remember who sold what. This would eliminate that.



PS, gun below is 100% legal for anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B7tzaYgp5g&feature=player_detailpage#t=7s

Im fully aware of bump stop. I have no problem with people owning guns like that and doing whatever. But they should be required to register the gun and fill out the 4473 LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

[Sinfix_15]

Restricting freedoms? YOu mean by REQUIRING PEOPLE TO DO WHAT THEY ALREADY DO WHEN PURCHASING A NEW WEAPON?????? HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RESTRICTING FREEDOMS? JESUS CHRIST ITS LIKE BEATING MY HEAD AGAINST A WALL.

All im saying is USED GUNS should be treated as NEW GUNS. PERIOD. No banning, NO GOVT POWER EXPANSION, NO RIGHTS TRAMPLED, NO "IM COMING TO TAKE YOUR ARMS". JUST TREAT A USED GUN WITH THE SAME CARE AND REGISTERING AS A NEW WEAPON! WHats the big deal?

All im pointing out is the GLARING dangerous aspect that ANYONE can get a gun and circumvent the ATF rules and regulations by just purchasing on the used gun market. THAT DOESNT BOTHER ANY OF YOU PEOPLE?

NEVERMIND the culture we are breeding with these EVERYONE GETS A GUN mentality that brings on cases like Trayvon Martin , hell the kid in the ZOSICK thread saying "i would have blown dude away if he punched me". SERIOUSLY? We have devolved into a society that says OMG YOU CAME AT ME IM KILLING YOU? People cant take a punch anymore?

My point is that i understand LAWS dont stop bad people, Bad people will do what they want to do because if you want to kill someone, you will find a way. My point is, what is the harm in having the used gun market which is circumvented DAILY, follow the same rules as NEW WEAPONS purchases? It WOULD STOP SOME people who dont qualify to own a gun from getting one. That alone is good enough for me.

You guys have this stupid ALL OR NOTHING stance that is just mind boggling. "OH IT WONT STOP ALL CRIMINALS SO ITS STUPID, LETS NOT DO ANYTHING, AND IF WE DO THE GUBERMENT WILL COME TAKE MAI GUNZ".

People do not trust the government. Gun control is the "put your foot down" issue when it comes to telling the government to fuck off. It's an issue of principle, you dont let the government control something that was meant to give you power against the government. Even though the life we live is much different from the rest of the world and thinking about being in conflict with your own government sounds insane, somewhere in the world right now civilians are being attacked by their own government and they are not adequately armed to defend themselves. The constitution allowed us guns because of the government. The government needs to work on proving to everyone that theyre competent and not bother with using something like this as a distraction.

[Vteckidd]

People do not trust the government. Gun control is the "put your foot down" issue when it comes to telling the government to fuck off. It's an issue of principle, you dont let the government control something that was meant to give you power against the government. Even though the life we live is much different from the rest of the world and thinking about being in conflict with your own government sounds insane, somewhere in the world right now civilians are being attacked by their own government and they are not adequately armed to defend themselves. The constitution allowed us guns because of the government. The government needs to work on proving to everyone that theyre competent and not bother with using something like this as a distraction.


Tell me how anything i listed changes anything in regard to arming citizens? it doesnt restrict anyone from owning any gun. Again, you just dont understand the issue.

[Sinfix_15]

Tell me how anything i listed changes anything in regard to arming citizens? it doesnt restrict anyone from owning any gun. Again, you just dont understand the issue.

i understand, i just dont want them anymore involved than they already are, even if that involvement is reasonable. How does anything you said effect the arming of citizens? it doesnt, but it's a first step. It's the old "give em an inch and they take a mile" argument. I reject anything that gives the government ANY more influence over my life in any way shape form or fashion, no matter how small or how reasonable. They need to prove theyre competent by solving an issue that is already on their plate before dealing with something like this.

and if they truly want to keep guns away from criminals....... quit selling them to pakistan.

[Vteckidd]

Agree to disagree, as i dont believe this is anymore GOVT INTRUSION because the law already exists in regards to serial numbers and weapons.

[David88vert]

Actually, Vteckidd, on this one Sinfix understands it, and upi do not appear to. The ONLY thing that registration of all firearms does is give the government a list of firearms where they can confiscate them later. That is the whole point of a national gun registry. Driver licenses are not national, they are state maintained. A federal registration is not the same, and our founding father specifically warned that the federal government should not be in control of guns.

Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens. Georgia law actually prohibits local city/county governments from registering firearms when applying for a firearms license. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 and Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Georgia has only 2 laws that regulate the purchasing of firearms. All other purchasing laws come from Federal law.

Government should be be afraid of the people, not the people be afraid of the government.

In the examples that I listed earlier, every single atrocity started with a federal registration to get a list, then a banning, followed by a seizure. None of these other nations believed that it could happen to them either, but it did. What makes you think that the US is any different, or special, compared to other nations that have been through this in the last 100 years?

As to the registering it like a used car - it already is. When a private individual sells a car to another private individual, they only sign a quick couple of documents - title, and BOS. There is no background check. You cannot place a requirement of a background check on private sales. The only alternative is to have all individuals get a registration card allowing them to purchase a firearm. Register the person, rahter than the weapon. That would be an infringment on the individual's rights from a legal perspective.

[Vteckidd]

Actually, Vteckidd, on this one Sinfix understands it, and upi do not appear to. The ONLY thing that registration of all firearms does is give the government a list of firearms where they can confiscate them later. That is the whole point of a national gun registry. Driver licenses are not national, they are state maintained. A federal registration is not the same, and our founding father specifically warned that the federal government should not be in control of guns.

Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens. Georgia law actually prohibits local city/county governments from registering firearms when applying for a firearms license. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 and Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Georgia has only 2 laws that regulate the purchasing of firearms. All other purchasing laws come from Federal law.

Government should be be afraid of the people, not the people be afraid of the government.

In the examples that I listed earlier, every single atrocity started with a federal registration to get a list, then a banning, followed by a seizure. None of these other nations believed that it could happen to them either, but it did. What makes you think that the US is any different, or special, compared to other nations that have been through this in the last 100 years?

then you disagree with lawas already on the books correct? SO you have the same fear when you purchase a new weapon right?

Again, THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS, whats wrong with extending it to cover used weapons? IF YOU BuY A USED GUN, IT IS SERIALIZED, ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT. WHY SHOULDNT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN IT GETS SOLD AGAIN? All im asking for is CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

[Vteckidd]

Drivers licenses belong to a NATIONAL database, they are state issued though. This is why if your GA license is suspended, you go to jail if you are in ARIZONA and get pulled over.

If youre so scared of the FEDs, then make it state mandatory with a national searchable database.

My point is you guys stick your head in the sand like a gun serial number identifies you, when you ALL PAY TAXES and do things DAILY like use a Debit card that gives out FAR MORE INFO than what firearm you own.

The Government KNOWS WHO YOU ARE already.

[Sinfix_15]

Agree to disagree, as i dont believe this is anymore GOVT INTRUSION because the law already exists in regards to serial numbers and weapons.

Our own government sells guns to anyone who will pay for a gun. We're the leading exporter of weapons. We sell guns to people who want to use their guns to fight us................

based on some 2003 stats i located.
Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), United Arab Emirates ($110 million), and Uzbekistan ($33 million).

Often when im watching the news i say this "i wish they could do what theyre asking me to do"....... If the government wants to do these things.... YOU FIRST. Quit asking me to do things you will not do. They want me to sacrifice and pay more taxes to pay off the debt, i didnt put us in debt..... nobody skipped check on taxes, if you dont pay your taxes... we all know what happens. I dont have money problems..... when i drive past the chevy dealership and see that zr1 sitting out there, i know i cant afford it. I live in a house that suits my budget, drive cars that suit my budget, eat food that suits my budget.... and if i dont live within my means, i suffer the consequences. Why cant i ask my government to live within their means? You know what your revenue is, balance your budget. If the government did everything in their power to cut costs and reduce spending, then at the end of that process said "hey, we still need a little more", i would feel ok about paying more taxes.

I feel the same way about gun control. If you want to stop "back door" gun sells...... you first. I wont sell my glock to a stranger ive never met as soon as you stop selling guns by the ton to conflict nations. Your suggestion is reasonable, but i simply do not want the government involved anymore in my life than they already are. I volunteer to give them NOTHING.

[Sinfix_15]

Actually, Vteckidd, on this one Sinfix understands it, and upi do not appear to. The ONLY thing that registration of all firearms does is give the government a list of firearms where they can confiscate them later. That is the whole point of a national gun registry. Driver licenses are not national, they are state maintained. A federal registration is not the same, and our founding father specifically warned that the federal government should not be in control of guns.

Georgia does not require the registration of firearms owned by citizens. Georgia law actually prohibits local city/county governments from registering firearms when applying for a firearms license. However dangerous weapons must be registered in compliance with the National Firearm Act (NFA) of 1934 and Federal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968
Georgia has only 2 laws that regulate the purchasing of firearms. All other purchasing laws come from Federal law.

Government should be be afraid of the people, not the people be afraid of the government.

In the examples that I listed earlier, every single atrocity started with a federal registration to get a list, then a banning, followed by a seizure. None of these other nations believed that it could happen to them either, but it did. What makes you think that the US is any different, or special, compared to other nations that have been through this in the last 100 years?

As to the registering it like a used car - it already is. When a private individual sells a car to another private individual, they only sign a quick couple of documents - title, and BOS. There is no background check. You cannot place a requirement of a background check on private sales. The only alternative is to have all individuals get a registration card allowing them to purchase a firearm. Register the person, rahter than the weapon. That would be an infringment on the individual's rights from a legal perspective.

This.

[David88vert]

then you disagree with lawas already on the books correct? SO you have the same fear when you purchase a new weapon right?

Again, THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS, whats wrong with extending it to cover used weapons? IF YOU BuY A USED GUN, IT IS SERIALIZED, ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT. WHY SHOULDNT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN IT GETS SOLD AGAIN? All im asking for is CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

Technically, we should not have existing registration laws for firearms.
Extending it will give a complete, comprehensive list, which is only advantageous to the government in regards to banning and seizure in the future. It serves no advantageous purpose for law-abiding citizens.

Chain of custody is a legal term in regards to law enforcement's evidence collection. It is not a term that should be used for the purchase and selling between private individuals. It does not exist for furniture, computers, tools, pianos, plumbing fixtures, etc - all of which can be used as weapons. Would you have every item purchased be tracked?

[Vteckidd]

As to the registering it like a used car - it already is. When a private individual sells a car to another private individual, they only sign a quick couple of documents - title, and BOS. There is no background check.

youre legally required to register the car in your county or face penalties and fines/jail time. The car is not allowed to be driven after 7 days or face penalties and fines/tickets. Possible impound. Also, youre mixing the two scenarios. You cannot be denied a NEW CAR because you have a DUI, you can be denied a LICENSE or INSURANCE which prohibits you from driving a car correct? There is no "background check" when you purchase the car new, so there is no Background check when you purchase the car used.

Guns- We require background check to purchase NEW, we should require background check to purchase USED.


You cannot place a requirement of a background check on private sales. The only alternative is to have all individuals get a registration card allowing them to purchase a firearm. Register the person, rahter than the weapon. That would be an infringment on the individual's rights from a legal perspective.

Why not? What makes the USED sale different from the NEW sale? Same firearm, same serial number, same danger/respect/caution needs to be used. Why shouldnt the same requirements be used?

What you suggest is plausible too, and im actually more in favor of that road. Require people to get a FIREARMS LICENSE that is some standard we all agree too. Certain level IQ (above mental retardation) , psychological test, safety course, firing course. No different than what we do for drivers licenses. Retest every 5 years. you could integrate it into the DMVs.

But i figured my route was less intrusive, silly me

[David88vert]

then you disagree with lawas already on the books correct? SO you have the same fear when you purchase a new weapon right?

Again, THE LAW ALREADY EXISTS, whats wrong with extending it to cover used weapons? IF YOU BuY A USED GUN, IT IS SERIALIZED, ATF KNOWS ABOUT IT. WHY SHOULDNT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT WHEN IT GETS SOLD AGAIN? All im asking for is CHAIN OF CUSTODY.


Drivers licenses belong to a NATIONAL database, they are state issued though. This is why if your GA license is suspended, you go to jail if you are in ARIZONA and get pulled over.

If youre so scared of the FEDs, then make it state mandatory with a national searchable database.

My point is you guys stick your head in the sand like a gun serial number identifies you, when you ALL PAY TAXES and do things DAILY like use a Debit card that gives out FAR MORE INFO than what firearm you own.

The Government KNOWS WHO YOU ARE already.

The government may know who you are, but they do not know all of what you own. A complete registration changes that, and gives the government more capabilities to abuse its power.

The national database for drivers licenses did not exist just 15 years ago.

[Vteckidd]

Technically, we should not have existing registration laws for firearms.
Extending it will give a complete, comprehensive list, which is only advantageous to the government in regards to banning and seizure in the future. It serves no advantageous purpose for law-abiding citizens.

It absolves you of any wrongdoing should your used firearm you sold to a person who commits a crime. It proves to LEO instantly you no longer own it. It gives you a legal, provable chain of custody to a new owner. No different than a CAR. Imagine HIT AND RUN crimes if we didnt require existing laws to register your car.........


Chain of custody is a legal term in regards to law enforcement's evidence collection. It is not a term that should be used for the purchase and selling between private individuals. It does not exist for furniture, computers, tools, pianos, plumbing fixtures, etc - all of which can be used as weapons. Would you have every item purchased be tracked?

Cool strawman bro.

Was the thread changed to "items that could kill you that arent guns?" I dont think anyone rationally can make the argument that firearms should be treated differently as Furniture,Computers, Tools, Nailguns, etc.

First, none of the items you listed require the paperwork and background checks that firearms have. So the second part of your question is moot. No we shouldnt track items that we already DONT TRACK.

We track firearms, its already done, why not close a GIGANTIC LOOP HOLE in the private used gun market

[Vteckidd]

The national database for drivers licenses did not exist just 15 years ago.

are we better off for it? yes or no.

You realize as time goes on, ALL FIREARMS will be tracked. MOre and more used guns will be used in crimes and confiscated, or used guns destroyed, etc. Eventually all guns on the market will be serial tracked as we phase out older and older guns.

I can tell you the ATF is at best WEEKS behind on people buying firearms from a gun store. They are so far behind its SCARY. The gun is already sold once they have questions on who it was sold to.

[David88vert]

What you suggest is plausible too, and im actually more in favor of that road. Require people to get a FIREARMS LICENSE that is some standard we all agree too. Certain level IQ (above mental retardation) , psychological test, safety course, firing course. No different than what we do for drivers licenses. Retest every 5 years. you could integrate it into the DMVs.

But i figured my route was less intrusive, silly me

So, you want to set aside the 2nd Amendment? How about we give up the 1st Amendment also - no free speech, regulate the internet, and seize all weapons? Oh wait, that is just what Mussolini and Hitler did.....

[Vteckidd]

So, you want to set aside the 2nd Amendment? How about we give up the 1st Amendment also - no free speech, regulate the internet, and seize all weapons? Oh wait, that is just what Mussolini and Hitler did.....

so because a CAR wasnt invented in the time of our Fore Fathers , means a license test is not giving up our rights when we all agree to Drivers License requirements? Am i reading that right?

Im not advocating giving up any rights, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. So you must agree with all of the following statements:

Mentally deranged and insane people should be able to own a firearm
Retarded people should be allowed to own a firearm
Convicted Felons should be allowed to own a Firearm
there should be no age restriction on who owns a firearm.

Do you agree with all those statements? If not, then you are AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS IT WAS WRITTEN! :trollface:

[David88vert]

It absolves you of any wrongdoing should your used firearm you sold to a person who commits a crime. It proves to LEO instantly you no longer own it. It gives you a legal, provable chain of custody to a new owner. No different than a CAR. Imagine HIT AND RUN crimes if we didnt require existing laws to register your car.........



Cool strawman bro.

Was the thread changed to "items that could kill you that arent guns?" I dont think anyone rationally can make the argument that firearms should be treated differently as Furniture,Computers, Tools, Nailguns, etc.

First, none of the items you listed require the paperwork and background checks that firearms have. So the second part of your question is moot. No we shouldnt track items that we already DONT TRACK.

We track firearms, its already done, why not close a GIGANTIC LOOP HOLE in the private used gun market

Who will use the information collected? Who uses it currently? How will access to it be managed? How will it be protected against being abused by the government later? Answer these questions first before implementation.

[Vteckidd]

Who will use the information collected? Who uses it currently? How will access to it be managed? How will it be protected against being abused by the government later? Answer these questions first before implementation.

Same people who use it now, ATF and Local LEO. Nothing changes.

[David88vert]

are we better off for it? yes or no.

You realize as time goes on, ALL FIREARMS will be tracked. MOre and more used guns will be used in crimes and confiscated, or used guns destroyed, etc. Eventually all guns on the market will be serial tracked as we phase out older and older guns.

I can tell you the ATF is at best WEEKS behind on people buying firearms from a gun store. They are so far behind its SCARY. The gun is already sold once they have questions on who it was sold to.

Are we better off with a national drivers license database? Define "we". Do you mean the people, or the government? What is the standard for defining it as successful? What freedoms does it imped?

As to what I think - there is no obvious disadvantage, and it's not something that the government could obviously abuse, like a firearms registration list.

[Vteckidd]

Are we better off with a national drivers license database? Define "we". Do you mean the people, or the government? What is the standard for defining it as successful? What freedoms does it imped?

The people.

I think we are better off for it, especially in this age of terrorism. LEO now can know instantly if a cali drivers license is real or fake without having to be trained on all states different designes and security measures. I was caught in GA with a suspended AZ license when i was 19, i was arrested on site, taken to jail. It stopped what it was supposed to stop.


As to what I think - there is no obvious disadvantage, and it's not something that the government could obviously abuse, like a firearms registration list.

What if the govt decided that you could no longer own a car that gets less than 30mpg on the highway? They could march to your door and take your Vette or Mustang, or modded civic. Dont laugh, you know that is down the Obama pipeline (Cash for clunkers was a glimpse of what they would do). Its very feasible. Would any of us let that happen? NOPE

[David88vert]

so because a CAR wasnt invented in the time of our Fore Fathers , means a license test is not giving up our rights when we all agree to Drivers License requirements? Am i reading that right?

Im not advocating giving up any rights, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. So you must agree with all of the following statements:

Mentally deranged and insane people should be able to own a firearm
Retarded people should be allowed to own a firearm
Convicted Felons should be allowed to own a Firearm
there should be no age restriction on who owns a firearm.

Do you agree with all those statements? If not, then you are AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS IT WAS WRITTEN! :trollface:

Driving is a priviledge. Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected individual right that was so important that the founding fathers thought to write a specific amendment for it.

Actually, the states pass laws regarding who is allowed to purchase firearms. And if those people demonstrate that they can properly handle a weapon, I have no issue with them having one.

[David88vert]

Same people who use it now, ATF and Local LEO. Nothing changes.

Pull your head out of the sand.

[Vteckidd]

Driving is a priviledge. Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally protected individual right that was so important that the founding fathers thought to write a specific amendment for it.

Actually, the states pass laws regarding who is allowed to purchase firearms. And if those people demonstrate that they can properly handle a weapon, I have no issue with them having one.

they couldnt write an amendment for something that wasnt invented yet :P

Just like people argue that the amendment was meant to protect 1770 POWDER LOADED MUSKETS with Ball rounds that took 45 second to load 1 shot, NOT 100 round mag semi/fully automatic weapons that can cut down trees.

I dont like to play "im smarter than the fore fathers" so i dont pretend to know what they INTENDED, i just look at what they wrote. I dont believe my way circumvents anything they wrote.

[David88vert]

The people.

I think we are better off for it, especially in this age of terrorism. LEO now can know instantly if a cali drivers license is real or fake without having to be trained on all states different designes and security measures. I was caught in GA with a suspended AZ license when i was 19, i was arrested on site, taken to jail. It stopped what it was supposed to stop.



What if the govt decided that you could no longer own a car that gets less than 30mpg on the highway? They could march to your door and take your Vette or Mustang, or modded civic. Dont laugh, you know that is down the Obama pipeline (Cash for clunkers was a glimpse of what they would do). Its very feasible. Would any of us let that happen? NOPE

The people in general are not better off.
As for going to jail on suspended license or no license, the local police let most go with just a ticket around here - that doesn't protect us.
On the car side - Cali already does that. They seize cars all the time. Now you want the entire country to be like that - communist/socialist?

How exactly would you stop them? Because that is how they will go after the guns also - read your history.

[Vteckidd]

Pull your head out of the sand.

ATF tracks serial numbers NOW, already. LEO police people caught with "STOLEN" (UNREGISTERED IN MY LAW) weapons.

What changes?

Matter of fact, i can make the argument that NO additional guns will be added to the registry. Im talking about tracking guns that are ALREADY TRACKED and in the books. Just updating the people that actually own them. If theres some SECRET stash of weapons with serial numbers filed off, well no law discovers those.

In no way are you denying anyone a RIGHT that is already being afforded. Nothing says "you cant own a firearm".

[David88vert]

they couldnt write an amendment for something that wasnt invented yet :P

Just like people argue that the amendment was meant to protect 1770 POWDER LOADED MUSKETS with Ball rounds that took 45 second to load 1 shot, NOT 100 round mag semi/fully automatic weapons that can cut down trees.

I dont like to play "im smarter than the fore fathers" so i dont pretend to know what they INTENDED, i just look at what they wrote. I dont believe my way circumvents anything they wrote.

They made many statements on firearms - read the quotes, and look up more for yourself. They had just come out of a revolution, and a war - they knew that firearms kept an oppressive government at bay. They were very clear in their statements.

[David88vert]

ATF tracks serial numbers NOW, already. LEO police people caught with "STOLEN" (UNREGISTERED IN MY LAW) weapons.

What changes?

Matter of fact, i can make the argument that NO additional guns will be added to the registry. Im talking about tracking guns that are ALREADY TRACKED and in the books. Just updating the people that actually own them. If theres some SECRET stash of weapons with serial numbers filed off, well no law discovers those.

In no way are you denying anyone a RIGHT that is already being afforded. Nothing says "you cant own a firearm".

Nothing yet.

There are quite a few member in Congress trying to take your guns. Go look up their positions and you will see that it is brewing in Congress. Those in power never want to give it up.

[Vteckidd]

The people in general are not better off.
As for going to jail on suspended license or no license, the local police let most go with just a ticket around here - that doesn't protect us.

EHHH in AZ a suspended license means you get a ticket and you walk home after you park your car. They arrested me out here. I had to pay $990 to get out.


On the car side - Cali already does that. They seize cars all the time. Now you want the entire country to be like that - communist/socialist?

I didnt say i agreed with it? You stated that a drivers registration list isnt as dangerous as a firearms list. I just showed you it was. Matter of fact cars are EASIER to track , much more in jeopardy NOW with your doomsday scenario


How exactly would you stop them? Because that is how they will go after the guns also - read your history.

I dont believe in the doomsday scenarios that people use to push their agenda. I dont believe in the govt going door to door to take arms, i dont believe in the govt being this ultra covert tactical unit hell bent on destroying its citizens.

I believe our govt is just as corrupt as you probably think. But i also dont think that just because we take some responsible measures automatically=GUN GRABBING, THERE GOES OUR FREEDOMS.

We arent any of the countries listed before, i dont believe our citizens would roll over and give up guns. I just think thats a pipe dream.

[Vteckidd]

Nothing yet.

There are quite a few member in Congress trying to take your guns. Go look up their positions and you will see that it is brewing in Congress. Those in power never want to give it up.

i dont disagree with this at all, But they wont succeed. The country is overwhelmingly (over 50% minimum) in favor of right to bear arms. It wont change anytime soon

[.blank cd]

They made many statements on firearms - read the quotes, and look up more for yourself. They had just come out of a revolution, and a war - they knew that firearms kept an oppressive government at bay. They were very clear in their statements.

Yes. They were very clear that every American has the constitutional right to automatic weapons and high powered ballistics.

[David88vert]

I dont believe in the doomsday scenarios that people use to push their agenda. I dont believe in the govt going door to door to take arms, i dont believe in the govt being this ultra covert tactical unit hell bent on destroying its citizens.

I believe our govt is just as corrupt as you probably think. But i also dont think that just because we take some responsible measures automatically=GUN GRABBING, THERE GOES OUR FREEDOMS.

We arent any of the countries listed before, i dont believe our citizens would roll over and give up guns. I just think thats a pipe dream.


i dont disagree with this at all, But they wont succeed. The country is overwhelmingly (over 50% minimum) in favor of right to bear arms. It wont change anytime soon

No one used to believe it in those other countries. It happened.

We have Senators openly stating that they want to seize all of the guns, and they still get re-elected. You really believe that they won't continue to try until they succeed?

[Sinfix_15]

EHHH in AZ a suspended license means you get a ticket and you walk home after you park your car. They arrested me out here. I had to pay $990 to get out.



I didnt say i agreed with it? You stated that a drivers registration list isnt as dangerous as a firearms list. I just showed you it was. Matter of fact cars are EASIER to track , much more in jeopardy NOW with your doomsday scenario



I dont believe in the doomsday scenarios that people use to push their agenda. I dont believe in the govt going door to door to take arms, i dont believe in the govt being this ultra covert tactical unit hell bent on destroying its citizens.

I believe our govt is just as corrupt as you probably think. But i also dont think that just because we take some responsible measures automatically=GUN GRABBING, THERE GOES OUR FREEDOMS.

We arent any of the countries listed before, i dont believe our citizens would roll over and give up guns. I just think thats a pipe dream.


Nope, and it starts with rejecting proposals like this.

[Vteckidd]

i see what you did there.

Good debate, i gotta go get some stuff done LOL wasted too much time on here. Thanks for the lively discussion guys! i always enjoy conversations with Sinfix and Dave, very smart guys. Always engaging.

Celebrate by going to a range and shooting?

Cheers

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. They were very clear that every American has the constitutional right to automatic weapons

The purpose was to arm ourselves AGAINST the government. You can say that the constitution was made when we were using powder muskets and assume that they wouldnt have allowed us to have automatic weapons back then......

back then..... they were riding horses and shooting muskets too.... Force should equal force..... Even if i have a basement full of AK47s and AR15s... im still no threat to the governments tanks, aircraft carriers, rockets, jets, helicopters..................

but its a matter of principle, the constitution wanted us to be protected from the government itself, so i find it hard to argue the limitation of firepower.

[Sinfix_15]

i see what you did there.

Good debate, i gotta go get some stuff done LOL wasted too much time on here. Thanks for the lively discussion guys! i always enjoy conversations with Sinfix and Dave, very smart guys. Always engaging.

Celebrate by going to a range and shooting?

Cheers

Same, time to get to work. I enjoy watching you guys argue....

[David88vert]

Yes. They were very clear that every American has the constitutional right to automatic weapons and high powered ballistics.

The founding fathers still dealt with firearms. The point is that they wanted the people to be able to resist an oppressive government. They had just dealt with that. At that point in time, they might have actually been for automatics, as they had just finished a war. We are not in a war, but there should be no reason that a law-abiding individual could not purchase one.

[David88vert]

i see what you did there.

Good debate, i gotta go get some stuff done LOL wasted too much time on here. Thanks for the lively discussion guys! i always enjoy conversations with Sinfix and Dave, very smart guys. Always engaging.

Celebrate by going to a range and shooting?

Cheers



I just want to make sure that your descendants get to have your old hand-me-down guns in the future. :-)

[Vteckidd]

Interesting read

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control | Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage)

[bu villain]

The purpose was to arm ourselves AGAINST the government. You can say that the constitution was made when we were using powder muskets and assume that they wouldnt have allowed us to have automatic weapons back then......

back then..... they were riding horses and shooting muskets too.... Force should equal force..... Even if i have a basement full of AK47s and AR15s... im still no threat to the governments tanks, aircraft carriers, rockets, jets, helicopters..................

but its a matter of principle, the constitution wanted us to be protected from the government itself, so i find it hard to argue the limitation of firepower.

Isn't the logical conclusion to that thinking that any individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

[Julio]

I just read this entire thread... On a Friday Night.. Wtf mate... Anyways.. I would never want to register any of my weapons.

[Sinfix_15]

Isn't the logical conclusion to that thinking that any individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? If not, where do you draw the line and why?

I cant use a nuclear weapon without harming someone. I can fire 10481239489012384901238490184239012849 rounds a day thru a AR15 without harming anyone. You draw the line at the point where my freedom restricts someone else's freedom. Anything i can do in the privacy of my own home or land without harming anyone else should be acceptable.

[David88vert]

Interesting read

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control | Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage)

The writer is 100% wrong on #1 and #2 and has no clue as to what he is writing about.


On #2 - See this story: Police: Lancaster man with axe demanded money from local restaurant | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/25/3404265/police-lancaster-man-demanded.html)
Clearly, the gun was used correctly to protect the owners life against a man threatening him with an axe.

On #1 - Read the quotes that I posted before by the founding fathers. They made it clear that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. People who try to say it was for a militia only and for state rights don't read what the founding fathers wrote, and further clarified in later statements. Obviously, the writer never bothered to study his history, and simply copied gun control advocates incorrect statements.

[.blank cd]

I cant use a nuclear weapon without harming someone. I can fire 10481239489012384901238490184239012849 rounds a day thru a AR15 without harming anyone. You draw the line at the point where my freedom restricts someone else's freedom. Anything i can do in the privacy of my own home or land without harming anyone else should be acceptable.
Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

[David88vert]

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

Since the discussion has been about the US laws concerning weapons, for your information, the last nuclear weapon test on US soil happened in Nevada in July 1962 - over 50 years ago. So exactly what do you mean when you say that they are tested all the time?
Please enlighten us on this. Again, it appears that you are making statements that have no basis in fact.

[Sinfix_15]

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

EPA might disagree. I could bury 500 gallons of used motor oil in my backyard too without initially hurting someone.... doesnt mean i'm not harming someone by doing that. Same with a nuclear bomb.

[.blank cd]

Since the discussion has been about the US laws concerning weapons, for your information, the last nuclear weapon test on US soil happened in Nevada in July 1962 - over 50 years ago. So exactly what do you mean when you say that they are tested all the time?
Please enlighten us on this. Again, it appears that you are making statements that have no basis in fact.My general statement wasnt about ONLY US nukes on ONLY US soil, but ask and ye shall receive enlightenment. There have been over 2000 nuclear device tests worldwide since Trinity in 1945. The total official count of US device tests is 1054, so yes, they got tested ALL THE TIME. The last US test was Operation Julin in September 1992, at the Nevada test site, which consisted of 8 different devices (all of which had their own codename). Im gonna guess that at least a couple of those were tested in the middle of the desert underground, so no one experienced any fallout. Bush Sr. signed a moratorium on nuclear device testing in October of 1992. The last known nuclear device test was in 2009 by North Korea. Did I really need to go that in depth on the subject? No, but I had to make your attempt to make me look like a dumbass fail miserably.

[.blank cd]

EPA might disagree. I could bury 500 gallons of used motor oil in my backyard too without initially hurting someone.... doesnt mean i'm not harming someone by doing that. Same with a nuclear bomb.
Maybe. I could also fire a bullet up into the air and kill someone...unintentionally. It has happend.

[David88vert]

My general statement wasnt about ONLY US nukes on ONLY US soil, but ask and ye shall receive enlightenment. There have been over 2000 nuclear device tests worldwide since Trinity in 1945. The total official count of US device tests is 1054, so yes, they got tested ALL THE TIME. The last US test was Operation Julin in September 1992, at the Nevada test site, which consisted of 8 different devices (all of which had their own codename). Im gonna guess that at least a couple of those were tested in the middle of the desert underground, so no one experienced any fallout. Bush Sr. signed a moratorium on nuclear device testing in October of 1992. The last known nuclear device test was in 2009 by North Korea. Did I really need to go that in depth on the subject? No, but I had to make your attempt to make me look like a dumbass fail miserably.

Julin was an UNDERGROUND test. Normal people do not have the capability to perform UNDERGROUND testing. ATMOSPHERIC testing is the only option that an individual would be possibly capable of doing. The US has not performed atmospheric testing since 1962. Are you really trying to use underground testing as a reasonable possibility, when the discussion was specifically nuclear testing by an individual with US citizenship on US soil? You have lost focus of what the original question was and have been grasping at straws.

North Korea has claimed that they tested on back on 2009, which is not proven. The US has had zero nuclear testing that is publically acknowledged in over 20 years, partially due to the 1996 treaty that Clinton signed - that is hardly "all the time".

Read up, and learn. Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing)
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Test_Ban_Treaty)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Test_Ban_Treaty)

[David88vert]

Maybe. I could also fire a bullet up into the air and kill someone...unintentionally. It has happend.

True statement. And under our existing laws, you could be convicted and sentenced. No reason to register, ban, or seize all firearms. just enforce existing laws.

[.blank cd]

Julin was an UNDERGROUND test. Normal people do not have the capability to perform UNDERGROUND testing. ATMOSPHERIC testing is the only option that an individual would be possibly capable of doing. The US has not performed atmospheric testing since 1962. Are you really trying to use underground testing as a reasonable possibility, when the discussion was specifically nuclear testing by an individual with US citizenship on US soil? You have lost focus of what the original question was and have been grasping at straws.

North Korea has claimed that they tested on back on 2009, which is not proven. The US has had zero nuclear testing that is publically acknowledged in over 20 years, partially due to the 1996 treaty that Clinton signed - that is hardly "all the time".

Read up, and learn. Nuclear weapons testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing)
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Test_Ban_Treaty)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Test_Ban_Treaty)

It would have been much easier for you to type "blank cd, you were incredibly 100% right". Read through the thread to see what the original question was and stop acting like a moron. You're the one reaching for straws now.

"normal people don't have the capacity to perform underground tests"

You're a fucking idiot. Normal people also don't have the capacity to acquire military grade nuclear warheads either.

[BanginJimmy]

How the hell did gun control turn into a question of nukes?

[.blank cd]

How the hell did gun control turn into a question of nukes?

Lol. I dunno, I made a joke, he took it seriously.

[David88vert]

It would have been much easier for you to type "blank cd, you were incredibly 100% right". Read through the thread to see what the original question was and stop acting like a moron. You're the one reaching for straws now.

"normal people don't have the capacity to perform underground tests"

You're a fucking idiot. Normal people also don't have the capacity to acquire military grade nuclear warheads either.

Re-read it your self. This discussion was brought up by you asking if it would be ok for a regular citizen to own a nuclear weapon. Sinfix stated that there was no problem owning it, but you couldn't use it without harming others. YOU stated that they were tested all the time, impling that anyone could do the same testing. How exactly are they supposed to do that except as an atmospheric explosion? How about then the answer to your original question then is yes, an individual should technically not be limited from owning, and using one - as long as they have the same underground capabilities. The only issue is how they comply with the US treaty (which is not currently in force) that eliminates nuclear testing. This issue is because you live in the US, and are subject to the government - another issue for another discussion.
Is that the not the real answer to your original questions, or are you just typing with no real goal of real discussion?

You weren't joking, you were trying to find a way to corrolate limitation of gun ownership to the limitation of nuclear weapons - in other words, to say that an assault rifle or handgun is just as dangerous and should be limited/banned. I know where you were trying to take your arguments. Technically, you would be correct, although you don't realize it. The AK-47 has killed more poeple than all nuclear weapons combined, so it technically is more dangerous. That would be a better argument for you to have brought up.

[.blank cd]

Nukes are tested all the time without harming anyone.

David, what 2nd grade english class did you not graduate from that made you think that was anything remotely close to a question? Without getting into analyzing sentence structure, the lack of a question mark did it for me.

My original statement was utterly and unequivocally 100% correct. Thank you for playing.

[David88vert]

Then what was your point to even typing it? Just to see if you could get words on a screen?

We are on the subject of US firearms and laws, and you want to just pop out a random global statment? That's what you are going with? And you think it will go unquestioned?

The facts are that no one agrees with your liberal gun-banning ideology here, because it doesn't work. It doesn't do anything to improve society, and only weakens the public.

There are approximately 33 million legal hunters in the US. Why shoud they give up their firearms? They aren't the problem.

[.blank cd]

The facts are that no one agrees with your liberal gun-banning ideology here, because it doesn't work.Further proof that you don't read

[bu villain]

I brought up nukes too because sinflix had stated that since individuals right to bear arms was based on being able to fight the government, individuals should not be limited in their ability to obtain firepower when the government is not so limited. My question was not to equate a handgun to a nuke but to try to come up with a consensus on where to draw the lines for what is acceptable for individuals to own and what is reasonable regulation. Most people would probably agree that it is somewhere between handguns and nukes but where exactly should it be and why? Sinflix seemed to be saying that anything and everything was fine.

[Vteckidd]

I think both sides need to acknowledge the following:

The Liberals need to realize that:
not everyone with an assault weapon is a gun toting redneck
Banning firearms as a whole isnt going to solve firearm crimes

The Republicans/Gun Advocates need to realize that:
Stop using the 2nd amendment as a means to mask the real issues at hand.
Stop using political rhetoric to halt any discussion on increasing safety measures for owners of firearms.

The gun industry just needs to STFU when it comes to all this HUNTING bullshit. You dont need an AR15 to hunt deer. PERIOD. you dont need 100 round fucking magazines to hunt QUAIL. Stop treating me like im a moron. Just say what you mean. "WE REALLY LIKE RAMBO, AND THIS SHIT IS FUCKING COOL SO WE MADE IT" and leave it at that.

Democrats need to stop pouncing on any gun shooting death and say "BAN ALL GUNS WE WILL BE BETTER OFF".

Just more evidence that both sides arent SERIOUS about solving the problems

[nelson9995]

Puerto Rico has 3. something million people. Last year, over 1,000 were assasinated. Japan has arguiably 100x the amount of people, and only 7 assasinations took place last year. Puerto Ricans are allowed to have guns, while Japan citizens are not. What do we see here?

[Vteckidd]

Puerto Rico has 3. something million people. Last year, over 1,000 were assasinated. Japan has arguiably 100x the amount of people, and only 7 assasinations took place last year. Puerto Ricans are allowed to have guns, while Japan citizens are not. What do we see here?

different people, different culture. much more complicated than that

[RandomGuy]

saw this on the internets today:

http://www.therightplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/zombie-free-zone.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

I think both sides need to acknowledge the following:

The Liberals need to realize that:
not everyone with an assault weapon is a gun toting redneck
Banning firearms as a whole isnt going to solve firearm crimes

The Republicans/Gun Advocates need to realize that:
Stop using the 2nd amendment as a means to mask the real issues at hand.
Stop using political rhetoric to halt any discussion on increasing safety measures for owners of firearms.

The gun industry just needs to STFU when it comes to all this HUNTING bullshit. You dont need an AR15 to hunt deer. PERIOD. you dont need 100 round fucking magazines to hunt QUAIL. Stop treating me like im a moron. Just say what you mean. "WE REALLY LIKE RAMBO, AND THIS SHIT IS FUCKING COOL SO WE MADE IT" and leave it at that.

Democrats need to stop pouncing on any gun shooting death and say "BAN ALL GUNS WE WILL BE BETTER OFF".

Just more evidence that both sides arent SERIOUS about solving the problems

I honestly do hunt hogs with either an AR15 or an AK47..............

[Vteckidd]

I honestly do hunt hogs with either an AR15 or an AK47..............

i didnt say you CANT hunt with an AR15, im saying trying to pass it off as its only used for that is complete bullshit, you know it, i know it.

Its like saying a ZR1 is a GREAT FAMILY CAR! NO THE FUCK ITS NOT, ITS USED FOR 1 THING, TO GO REALLY REALLY FAST , DESPITE WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.

[David88vert]

Puerto Rico has 3. something million people. Last year, over 1,000 were assasinated. Japan has arguiably 100x the amount of people, and only 7 assasinations took place last year. Puerto Ricans are allowed to have guns, while Japan citizens are not. What do we see here?

Switzerland.
Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.

[David88vert]

I think both sides need to acknowledge the following:

The Liberals need to realize that:
not everyone with an assault weapon is a gun toting redneck
Banning firearms as a whole isnt going to solve firearm crimes

The Republicans/Gun Advocates need to realize that:
Stop using the 2nd amendment as a means to mask the real issues at hand.
Stop using political rhetoric to halt any discussion on increasing safety measures for owners of firearms.

The gun industry just needs to STFU when it comes to all this HUNTING bullshit. You dont need an AR15 to hunt deer. PERIOD. you dont need 100 round fucking magazines to hunt QUAIL. Stop treating me like im a moron. Just say what you mean. "WE REALLY LIKE RAMBO, AND THIS SHIT IS FUCKING COOL SO WE MADE IT" and leave it at that.

Democrats need to stop pouncing on any gun shooting death and say "BAN ALL GUNS WE WILL BE BETTER OFF".

Just more evidence that both sides arent SERIOUS about solving the problems

The problem is that you can't meet in the middle if either side is unwilling to. Some Democrats have repeatedly stated that only a complete ban is acceptable, which defeats them from even discussing it.

Assault rifles are not NEEDED for defense - we all know that. However, handguns are useful for defense, and rifles and shotguns are legitimate hunting weapons. I have no problem with making all assault rifles need a FFL. Fully auto ones already do anyway. That still won't keep them out of the hands of criminals though. Don't think for a moment that it will improve crime rates.

The Second Amendment is not a mask of issues, it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. If you really want to reduce gun-related crimes, make the penalties so severe that no one will risk using them for crime AND enforce those laws. Leaving someone in jail for a few years is not enough of a deterent. Make it hard labor and capital punishment that is quickly metted out, and you will see crime drop, as it would no longer be worth the risk.

[David88vert]

I honestly do hunt hogs with either an AR15 or an AK47..............

Why? Generally, hunting rifles work better.

[Vteckidd]

The problem is that you can't meet in the middle if either side is unwilling to. Some Democrats have repeatedly stated that only a complete ban is acceptable, which defeats them from even discussing it.

Assault rifles are not NEEDED for defense - we all know that. However, handguns are useful for defense, and rifles and shotguns are legitimate hunting weapons. I have no problem with making all assault rifles need a FFL. Fully auto ones already do anyway. That still won't keep them out of the hands of criminals though. Don't think for a moment that it will improve crime rates.

The Second Amendment is not a mask of issues, it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. If you really want to reduce gun-related crimes, make the penalties so severe that no one will risk using them for crime AND enforce those laws. Leaving someone in jail for a few years is not enough of a deterent. Make it hard labor and capital punishment that is quickly metted out, and you will see crime drop, as it would no longer be worth the risk.

i have no disagreements with anything you said.

My point about the second amendment is anytime someone even wants to talk about reforming/modifying/discussing gun regulations, laws, there ARE PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT THAT SCREAM 2nd amendment and use that to mask any decent conversation.

[Sinfix_15]

i didnt say you CANT hunt with an AR15, im saying trying to pass it off as its only used for that is complete bullshit, you know it, i know it.

Its like saying a ZR1 is a GREAT FAMILY CAR! NO THE FUCK ITS NOT, ITS USED FOR 1 THING, TO GO REALLY REALLY FAST , DESPITE WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.

ZR1 is a great family car. If someone uses it for any other purpose than transportation, give them a ticket. Problem solved!!!!

Does anyone need AR15s or ZR1s? no.... but do you want to live in a world where all the cars top out @ 55mph and the guns are made to be adequate for hunting?

My argument for excessive firepower is this....

If someone breaks into my house, i do not want to have a fair fight with them. I do not want my life to be left up to my marksmanship vs my attacker's marksmanship. I want the advantage. I dont want to have to conserve my shot, count how many bullets i have left or think about having to hit them in the right place or having to shoot them multiple times to stop them. I want a gun that will cut my living room wall down and kill anyone in it's path. If the government doesnt like my methods of self defense, put a policemen in my driveway 24/7 365 days a year and i'll let him take care of it. If theyre not equip to do that, then let me handle it how i see fit.

When im hunting, i want something fun to shoot and advantageous to the situation. Hunting in a deer stand, i want accuracy and 1 shot stopping power and would opt for a 270 or a 308. Hunting on foot, i prefer something closer to an assault rifle. Lets say i step thru a bush and a 300 lb boar charges me, i dont want to have a bolt action rifle in my hand, or a bear, pack of coyotes, cougar or anything like that........ if the government doesnt like it, assign a sniper to cover me the entire time im hunting and shoot anything that approaches me aggressively. If theyre not equip to do that.......... then let me handle it.

[Vteckidd]

I didnt advocate banning AR15s or ZR1s!!! I Just said state the fucking purpose for them honestly. Im not questioning what you want to use both for because I am an intelligent human being , i know what they are used for.

1 is to rip zombies to pieces
1 is to shred the speed limit

Dont lie to me and say 1 is used "TO HUNT" and 1 is "A responsible family car". The only difference is that the ZR1 is marketed as what it is supposed to do. AR15s and assault weapons are marketed as being TACTICAL and such, but when they are used in that way people scream "2nd amendment USED FOR HUNTING!"

[Sinfix_15]

Why? Generally, hunting rifles work better.

more fun to shoot a moving target with an ak47 than it is to shoot one from across a field that doesnt see me. Either way.... bacon is bacon.

[Sinfix_15]

I didnt advocate banning AR15s or ZR1s!!! I Just said state the fucking purpose for them honestly. Im not questioning what you want to use both for because I am an intelligent human being , i know what they are used for.

1 is to rip zombies to pieces
1 is to shred the speed limit

Dont lie to me and say 1 is used "TO HUNT" and 1 is "A responsible family car". The only difference is that the ZR1 is marketed as what it is supposed to do. AR15s and assault weapons are marketed as being TACTICAL and such, but when they are used in that way people scream "2nd amendment USED FOR HUNTING!"

but isnt that how our entire legal system is structured? to prove a reasonable doubt....... lawyers get paid millions of dollars to sit in a court room and argue any possible scenario they can imagine to prove a reasonable doubt. So why cant gun owners and sports car owners do the same?

I use an AR15 to hunt pigs because im a poor shot and cant hit them a 308. I cant shoot a shotgun because a previous shoulder injury causes it to hurt me. I use the pigs to feed my family because i cant afford to shop at the supermarket. I drive a ZR1 to impress women. The ZR1 is also the reason i cant afford to feed my family. If not for the ZR1, i wouldnt have a family to feed because my wife wouldnt have noticed me.

Reasonable doubt.

[Vteckidd]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/mfingar/LT%20Ads/AmyAd_LEPNRev-1.jpg
OUTFITTING FOR OUR FINEST WAR FIGHTERS

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/mfingar/LT%20Ads/LaRue_DawnDayNightAdUSETHISONE.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-10-27-BushmasterACRHuff.jpg
COMBAT RIFLE

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f116/mt6551/AR15/Colt-9mmAR15-Ad.jpg

COMBAT RIFLE

http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ORD_HK416_Labeled_lg.jpg
AD SHOWING US MILITARY



I see a ton of TACTICAL, COMBAT, MILITARY, WAR references. I dont see a god damn thing about HUNTING.

I searched CORvETTE ADs on google, couldnt find 1 that said "FAMILY CAR!" . They all claim it does what it was intended to do, drive really fast

[Sinfix_15]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/mfingar/LT%20Ads/AmyAd_LEPNRev-1.jpg
OUTFITTING FOR OUR FINEST WAR FIGHTERS

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/mfingar/LT%20Ads/LaRue_DawnDayNightAdUSETHISONE.jpg

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-10-27-BushmasterACRHuff.jpg
COMBAT RIFLE

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f116/mt6551/AR15/Colt-9mmAR15-Ad.jpg

COMBAT RIFLE

http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ORD_HK416_Labeled_lg.jpg
AD SHOWING US MILITARY



I see a ton of TACTICAL, COMBAT, MILITARY, WAR references. I dont see a god damn thing about HUNTING.

I searched CORvETTE ADs on google, couldnt find 1 that said "FAMILY CAR!" . They all claim it does what it was intended to do, drive really fast

Women like things that "look pretty". My wife likes my ZR1 and doesnt know what an ls1 is. My driving record speaks for my driving habits. I've gone over the speed limit twice in the last 10 years and law enforcement handled my transgressions appropriately and i learned from the experiences. The few winters i tried hunting with a standard bolt action rifle, my family went hungry. Even though some would view the AR15 as a tactical military rifle, it's size and recoil best suits my frame and previously mentioned medical history. When i purchased my ar15 i was told that it was legal to own and that i could use it for hunting. I've been hunting successfully with it for years now and i rely on it to feed my family, i have no criminal history what so ever and am a tax paying american. You want to take my hunting rifle away because some crazed person ive never met committed a crime in a state/city that i've never visited using an AR15?

[Sinfix_15]

gotta get some food and get to work!

:goodjob:

[Vteckidd]

You want to take my hunting rifle away because some crazed person ive never met committed a crime in a state/city that i've never visited using an AR15?

I DONT WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY! WHERE HAVE I ADVOCATED ANY BANS ON ANY GUNS??????

Im just saying its NO SECRET that gun industry markets a product for a specific use, then when its used in that manner, they fall back on "ITS FOR HUNTING, ITS the 2nd amendment, its OUR RIGHT!"

For once id love to see someone say "yeah, that guy killed a bunch of people because he bought a fucking semi auto zombie killer, it worked, successful test". The guns are marketed as TACTICAL and MILITARY COMBAT. Do you know what that means? It means they are designed TO KILL PEOPLE, MASS PEOPLE, TACTICALLY, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING, OR WITH MAXIMUM DAMAGE/KILL SHOTS.

Just OWN UP TO IT. That is what that shit is made and designed for. DONT TREAT ME LIKE IM STUPID like people are hunting Pheasants with AR15.

[tnomud]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f296/tnomud/IMG_3194.jpg

[bu villain]

Most people have no desire to ban all guns. Even the president of the the Brady Campaign gun control group doesn't want to ban all guns. To argue against banning all guns is pointless because that is not a mainstream opinion. Most democrats would not vote for such a ban. The bill to allow guns in national parks was signed nearly unanimously and approved by Obama. If you think your guns are in any serious danger of being taken away, you are unduly paranoid.

[David88vert]

Most people have no desire to ban all guns. Even the president of the the Brady Campaign gun control group doesn't want to ban all guns. To argue against banning all guns is pointless because that is not a mainstream opinion. Most democrats would not vote for such a ban. The bill to allow guns in national parks was signed nearly unanimously and approved by Obama. If you think your guns are in any serious danger of being taken away, you are unduly paranoid.

How about the Cybersecurity Bill? THIS PAST WEEK, Democratic senators offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers - how is gun control related to cybersecurity?
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995
You still think that she isn't after a total gun ban?

Do you forget that Obama had the DOJ looking for a way that he could take executive action, and bypass Congress on gun control just last year?

Here is the reality of Congress - there are lots for gun control and lots against. I hope that you are correct that we are in no danger of losing legal rights to guns, but it's clear that there are people in power that want to take them all away.
US Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America (http://gunowners.org/112thsrat.htm)
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America (http://gunowners.org/112hrat.htm)

[Vteckidd]

Banning high capacity magazines is different than an outright ban on assault weapons. I do understand the connection.

We should have a debate about what the country feels is right and wrong regarding arms. I dont think we should sell 100 round magazines for AR15s. Theres absolutely NO POINT in selling a high capicity magazine unless its for the military. But that opens up a can of worms that leads to what else the govt thinks is unacceptable which i dont want it to lead to.

[David88vert]

Banning high capacity magazines is different than an outright ban on assault weapons. I do understand the connection.

We should have a debate about what the country feels is right and wrong regarding arms. I dont think we should sell 100 round magazines for AR15s. Theres absolutely NO POINT in selling a high capicity magazine unless its for the military. But that opens up a can of worms that leads to what else the govt thinks is unacceptable which i dont want it to lead to.

We banned high capacity magazines before - and crime rates did not drop because of it. What is the point of doing it now? You think that 15 shots is going to be more dangerous than 10 in the hands of a law-abiding citizen? Criminals will just carry more illegally obtained weapons.

The government has the tendency to continue to take from the citizens. They used to only have property and poll tax. Now, we have taxes on everything, and they always increase, and don't drop. Everytime you give up a little bit of freedom, they come back looking to take more.

[Vteckidd]

10 to 15, no

10-15 to 100, YES.

Theres simply no need for a 100 round mag unless you are in Kabul or Kandahar.

[Sinfix_15]

I DONT WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY! WHERE HAVE I ADVOCATED ANY BANS ON ANY GUNS??????

Im just saying its NO SECRET that gun industry markets a product for a specific use, then when its used in that manner, they fall back on "ITS FOR HUNTING, ITS the 2nd amendment, its OUR RIGHT!"

For once id love to see someone say "yeah, that guy killed a bunch of people because he bought a fucking semi auto zombie killer, it worked, successful test". The guns are marketed as TACTICAL and MILITARY COMBAT. Do you know what that means? It means they are designed TO KILL PEOPLE, MASS PEOPLE, TACTICALLY, WITHOUT THEM KNOWING, OR WITH MAXIMUM DAMAGE/KILL SHOTS.

Just OWN UP TO IT. That is what that shit is made and designed for. DONT TREAT ME LIKE IM STUPID like people are hunting Pheasants with AR15.

It's not what you know, its what you can prove. My AR15 is a hunting rifle. Until i use it in combat or shoot a person with it, it's a hunting rifle. My ZR1 is a family car, the only reason it goes over 55mph is in case i ever need to rush my family to the hospital. Until i start getting reckless driving tickets weekly, you cant prove otherwise.

You know better..... or think you do, but its not about what you know, its what you can prove. You cant allow people to paint pictures based on what they "KNOW"...........

You're a rational person, so your point of view isnt that far fetched.... but if we allowed others to make decisions based on what they "know", the world could be a pretty scary place.

Christians "know" that Jesus is the answer to a happy life and that we should consider him in all decisions.
The NAACP "knows" that any crime committed against a black person was a racist hate crime.
BlankCD "knows" that the world would be a liberal paradise if we turned our lives over the government and let them take care of us.
Black people "know" that Obama is our best option for president.

so with that said.... you may "know" that i like AR15s because theyre cool and people drive zr1s because theyre pavement shredding beasts...... but you cant prove anything other than 1 is a rifle and 1 is a car, Both legal to own and enjoy.

[Sinfix_15]

10 to 15, no

10-15 to 100, YES.

Theres simply no need for a 100 round mag unless you are in Kabul or Kandahar.

Give me a reason not to have a 100 round magazine. Maybe i want to target shoot without reloading a lot, maybe i want to cut a tree down, maybe i just enjoy loud noises.

[Vteckidd]

Give me a reason not to have a 100 round magazine. Maybe i want to target shoot without reloading a lot, maybe i want to cut a tree down, maybe i just enjoy loud noises.

because we regulate every other standard out there, why should guns be off limits?

I love flame throwers, why cant i own one? maybe i just want to charbroil a burger like chuck norris?

[tnomud]

to be honest, I do use my AR15 to shoot yotes and hog on my property. That being said, my 2 daily carry weapons are way more dangerous to others than my AR15 is. It really doesnt matter what they do, those who have their stuff will be grandfathered in. I still have pre-ban guns from the last ban.

[Sinfix_15]

because we regulate every other standard out there, why should guns be off limits?

I love flame throwers, why cant i own one? maybe i just want to charbroil a burger like chuck norris?

You should be allowed to use a flame thrower on your property. I'd suggest a course in fire safety and hold you responsible for the firefighter bill if you ever caught your yard on fire, but other than that...... you want to grill a burger from 20 yards away with a flame thrower.... god bless america, enjoy.

"because we regulate other things" is not a good enough answer for me, i want justification for these regulations. "we're banning 100 round magazines so that if someone goes on a killing spree, he will have to reload, giving police more time to respond to the scene" Ok, so if we're that anal about things, lets just ban any and everything dangerous that could be used as a weapon, lets shut the airports down and make everyone travel by hot air balloon since a jumbo jet could be used as a weapon.

The reason people have the "all or nothing" mentality is because we dont trust the government to decide what reasonable is.

[bu villain]

David, I said "most" so pointing out one person who wants to ban guns doesn't prove anything. Give me a list of senators/congressmen even half of what it takes to pass a bill and then I will agree you have cause for concern. Until then, it is pretty far from mainstream.


The reason people have the "all or nothing" mentality is because we dont trust the government to decide what reasonable is.

Then our representative democracy is a failed experiment since "we" elected those people.

[David88vert]

David, I said "most" so pointing out one person who wants to ban guns doesn't prove anything. Give me a list of senators/congressmen even half of what it takes to pass a bill and then I will agree you have cause for concern. Until then, it is pretty far from mainstream.


I gave you the links in post #111. It shows each Senator and Representatives positions on how they vote on gun issues.

Again:
Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America (http://gunowners.org/112thsrat.htm)
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America (http://gunowners.org/112hrat.htm)

There are 49 that are blatently anti-gun in the US Senate (out of 100), and over 150 in the US Representatives - is that enough for you? There are just the ones that actively vote for gun control, with many of them publically asking for a gun ban. Look at Massachusetts, California, and New York.

If you wait until they have enough votes to pass a bill, it will be too late, as it will be law, and then if you follow history, the government will make criminals out of normal citizens.

[Sinfix_15]

David, I said "most" so pointing out one person who wants to ban guns doesn't prove anything. Give me a list of senators/congressmen even half of what it takes to pass a bill and then I will agree you have cause for concern. Until then, it is pretty far from mainstream.



Then our representative democracy is a failed experiment since "we" elected those people.

Maybe so.

[bu villain]

I gave you the links in post #111. It shows each Senator and Representatives positions on how they vote on gun issues.

Again:
Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America (http://gunowners.org/112thsrat.htm)
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America (http://gunowners.org/112hrat.htm)

There are 49 that are blatently anti-gun in the US Senate (out of 100), and over 150 in the US Representatives - is that enough for you? There are just the ones that actively vote for gun control, with many of them publically asking for a gun ban. Look at Massachusetts, California, and New York.

If you wait until they have enough votes to pass a bill, it will be too late, as it will be law, and then if you follow history, the government will make criminals out of normal citizens.

That link rates members based on how closely they vote with the positions of the GOA. It doesn't in any way mean they want to abolish guns. Take the vote on allowing guns in federal parks. It passed with about 70% of the votes. It's disingenuous to say that because someone thinks more gun regulation is needed or that they don't agree with the GOA that they are for banning all guns (ie. anti-gun). Further to say that any more regulation will innevitably lead to an outright ban is equally disingenuous.

[David88vert]

Go look up the Congressmen's websites individually then.

Ignore history and you can relive it.

[bu villain]

Go look up the Congressmen's websites individually then.

Ignore history and you can relive it.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that our guns are in danger of being taken away and yet you want me to go look through 400+ congressmen's websites to verify your claim? I already stated that 70% of them recently voted for a relaxing of gun laws (you can verify on the same GOA site you refered too). How our representatives vote is the best indicator there is in my opinion and it shows that we are a very long way from an all out gun ban being a credible threat.

It's quite a leap to say that because guns have been taken away from people in other countries at other times in history, that such a threat is immenent here and now in this country. History is a tool to learn from, not something to be blindly paranoid about regardless of evidence.

[BanginJimmy]

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that our guns are in danger of being taken away and yet you want me to go look through 400+ congressmen's websites to verify your claim? I already stated that 70% of them recently voted for a relaxing of gun laws (you can verify on the same GOA site you refered too). How our representatives vote is the best indicator there is in my opinion and it shows that we are a very long way from an all out gun ban being a credible threat.



Take a look at the proposed UN small arms treaty. 51 senators from both parties signed a letter saying they would vote against a bill that could in any way infringe upto American's right to bear arms. Another 20+ said they needed more specific language about the ban before they would vote in favor of it.

Then again, if the treaty was signed by Clinton, Reid probably would have refused to introduce it. Just because it is a constitutional requirement doesnt mean he should have to subject his party to uncomfortable votes.



It's quite a leap to say that because guns have been taken away from people in other countries at other times in history, that such a threat is immenent here and now in this country. History is a tool to learn from, not something to be blindly paranoid about regardless of evidence.

The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

[David88vert]

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that our guns are in danger of being taken away and yet you want me to go look through 400+ congressmen's websites to verify your claim? I already stated that 70% of them recently voted for a relaxing of gun laws (you can verify on the same GOA site you refered too). How our representatives vote is the best indicator there is in my opinion and it shows that we are a very long way from an all out gun ban being a credible threat.

It's quite a leap to say that because guns have been taken away from people in other countries at other times in history, that such a threat is immenent here and now in this country. History is a tool to learn from, not something to be blindly paranoid about regardless of evidence.

I've given you specific senators who have stated that they want to ban guns. You ignore this repeatedly.
I gave you a link to all of the ratings on Congress that is based on their stated positions and their voting records. ALL of those F- ratngs are Congress men who want to ban guns. That's a lot of people who choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment. Only 130 Republican Representatives signed the letter to Obama recently. SOS Clinton has pushed for the UN treaty, and it is clear that Obama's administration is trying to find a loophole to bring about a ban.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/)

[David88vert]

The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

It's different if it's from him. Rules are only for others.

[bu villain]

Take a look at the proposed UN small arms treaty. 51 senators from both parties signed a letter saying they would vote against a bill that could in any way infringe upto American's right to bear arms. Another 20+ said they needed more specific language about the ban before they would vote in favor of it.

I would have to see exactly what the treaty said. Can you link to it. If it says they want to ban assault rifles then that wouldn't surprise me but a ban on assault weapons is not even close to an all out gun ban.


The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

Despite what David seems to think, I agree that low gun deaths in other countries doesn't prove the same would be true here. That was never my argument though. My only argument is that gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban and I don't think we are in any danger of having a complete gun ban in this country anytime soon.

[David88vert]

I would have to see exactly what the treaty said. Can you link to it. If it says they want to ban assault rifles then that wouldn't surprise me but a ban on assault weapons is not even close to an all out gun ban.



Despite what David seems to think, I agree that low gun deaths in other countries doesn't prove the same would be true here. That was never my argument though. My only argument is that gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban and I don't think we are in any danger of having a complete gun ban in this country anytime soon.

I posted a link to a lot of the information on it earlier, but the full document of the treaty proposal has not been released to the public, only some key pieces have been released.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Go to the dedicated UN disarmament site for more: United Nations Disarmament ...strengthening peace and security through disarmament (http://www.un.org/disarmament/)
You can read the 18 page report from the Secretary with all 5 recomendations online in PDF.

[bu villain]

I've given you specific senators who have stated that they want to ban guns. You ignore this repeatedly.
I gave you a link to all of the ratings on Congress that is based on their stated positions and their voting records. ALL of those F- ratngs are Congress men who want to ban guns. That's a lot of people who choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment. Only 130 Republican Representatives signed the letter to Obama recently. SOS Clinton has pushed for the UN treaty, and it is clear that Obama's administration is trying to find a loophole to bring about a ban.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/)

You listed a few senators who would like a gun ban. I read the GOA site and it doesn't say that those with F- say they want a complete gun ban. If you could direct me to where it says F- means they want to ban ALL guns then I will go look again.

As far as the article is concerned, the UN states "The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons". I didn't see anything but speculation about what the president's intentions might be and how he could try to circumvent the fact that international treaties are approved by congress. The article was thoroughly unconvincing and I am all for people owning guns.

[bu villain]

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).


Not saying I agree with all those measures but still a far cry from a all out gun ban.


4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

Does car registration set the stage for full-scale car confiscation?


5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

If we agree to it, then it's not overriding our national sovreignity. It's simply voting and saying we agree to this as a nation. No one is forcing us to sign it if we don't want to. Just as the president issues an executive order to say the constitution is null and void, neither can he override the constitution by signing a treaty either.

I agree their are legitimate concerns about gun control but when every debate is framed as a fight against all out gun bans, I think a lot of credibility is lost.

[Sinfix_15]

So, sitting in the break room today, a pretty fired up older black gentleman who was watching the news said...............

and i quote..................

" If they would ban guns their would be no crime "

[David88vert]

You listed a few senators who would like a gun ban. I read the GOA site and it doesn't say that those with F- say they want a complete gun ban. If you could direct me to where it says F- means they want to ban ALL guns then I will go look again.

As far as the article is concerned, the UN states "The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons". I didn't see anything but speculation about what the president's intentions might be and how he could try to circumvent the fact that international treaties are approved by congress. The article was thoroughly unconvincing and I am all for people owning guns.


Not saying I agree with all those measures but still a far cry from a all out gun ban.



Does car registration set the stage for full-scale car confiscation?



If we agree to it, then it's not overriding our national sovreignity. It's simply voting and saying we agree to this as a nation. No one is forcing us to sign it if we don't want to. Just as the president issues an executive order to say the constitution is null and void, neither can he override the constitution by signing a treaty either.

I agree their are legitimate concerns about gun control but when every debate is framed as a fight against all out gun bans, I think a lot of credibility is lost.

Read up on it. Many legal experts have stated the same list that I just gave you - I copied one of their notes and put it above. It's not something that I made up.

I agree that the Constitution overrides all treaties. Case law specifically supports that. And of course the President is not able to authorize a treaty without Congress. We have those checks and balances in place. What you can see though is the gradual placement of a plan to enact registration, then confiscation - just like several other countries have done within the last century. If you ignore it now, it will be too late to do anything later.
The only thing registration can do is give the government a list of legal arms - criminals will not register their guns. That is fact.

Now, the update - Previously, Obama and Hillary have stated that they were going to push hard to get Congress to ratify this treaty, and many of the UN members have stated that they are looking to ban all privately controlled small arms. The UN conference is over for 2012 (just ended), and just one week after the Aurora massacre, Obama has suddenly changed tune, and said the "US needed more time to review the treaty." This has effectively killed the UN treaty - for now. Basically, Aurora pushed gun control to the headlines, and Obama knew that he couldn't fly it under the radar. In a election year, it would have been a potential controversy that could have eventually sank his re-election campaign, so hence, the about-face.

[David88vert]

So, sitting in the break room today, a pretty fired up older black gentleman who was watching the news said...............

and i quote..................

" If they would ban guns their would be no crime "

You should have said, "There was no crime before guns were invented?"

[.blank cd]

The only thing registration can do is give the government a list of legal arms - criminals will not register their guns. That is fact.The Auroura theater shooting suspect James Holmes purchased all of his weapons through legal channels. All of his guns were registered. SOME criminals won't register there guns.

[David88vert]

The Auroura theater shooting suspect James Holmes purchased all of his weapons through legal channels. All of his guns were registered. SOME criminals won't register there guns.

Really? You think that some criminals WILL come in and register their firearms? Maybe a few stupid ones will, as there are some retards out there, but the vast majority won't.

How would a national gun registration prevented Auroura? If you took away his guns, he would have just blown up the theatre. It wouldn't have stopped it. We will always have senseless killings like this with us. The problem is the person commiting the atrocity. It's not the weapon used. Go after the source, which is to identify the threat as soon as possible. Show how registration will help identify the threat - no one has been able to define that yet.

[Sinfix_15]

You should have said, "There was no crime before guns were invented?"

I've stopped bothering. I just assume every black person is a mindless far left sheep at this point. Which is 97% correct......... based on the polls.

[.blank cd]

Really? You think that some criminals WILL come in and register their firearms? Maybe a few stupid ones will, as there are some retards out there, but the vast majority won't.You have some data on this? Or am I correct in assuming you pulled this vast majority figure out of your ass?

[Vteckidd]

The Auroura theater shooting suspect James Holmes purchased all of his weapons through legal channels. All of his guns were registered. SOME criminals won't register there guns.

They dont get it. Again, i find the opposition just flat out funny.

NEW FIREARM PURCHASE RULES- Register serial number through licensed FFL= Perfectly ok
USED FIREARM PURCHASES- No laws or regulations or requirements= OK

Asking all firearms to be treated the same = YOURE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS! YOU ARE INFRINGING UPON MY RIGHTS! GOVERNMENT WILL COME TAKE MY ARMS!

its stupid, its dumb, its absolute bullshit, itll never happen. I dont know how a group can rationalize the standards for 1 instance, but then act like that same requirement is some big brother gun grab that violates the founding fathers wishes.

No one is saying people cant own firearms, or cant purchase guns. But streamlining ownership records so LEO doesnt waste time tracking down 3-4 owners down the road is worth it in the end.

Let me ask you guys this. What if James Holmes had bought his guns used, legally. what if he was 3-4 people down the road? What if he didnt give up? LEO would be chasing down 3-4-5 people to get to the current owner. Isnt that a waste of resources? Tax payer money ?

Having a singular standard is responsible, its not infringing upon anything because all people still have the right to own their gun

[Vteckidd]

Really? You think that some criminals WILL come in and register their firearms? Maybe a few stupid ones will, as there are some retards out there, but the vast majority won't.

History proves you wrong, the last 4 largest massacres were LEGAL registered weapons. So yes, criminals do register guns.


How would a national gun registration prevented Auroura? I
dumb argument is dumb. I have NEVER SAID it would have prevented someone from killing someone. On the contrary, ive said it would most certainly NOT have prevented Aurora. The fact that you and everyone else keeps double talking and bringing this up like gun control=crimes abolished is just flat out skewing and manipulating words.

no one has said that Gun Registration= problem solved, with all due respect, stop saying that. its a lie.

All im saying is that bad guys exploit weaknesses, there is a huge weakness in the used gun market. We should close it. Will it prevent gun massacres? NOPE. Will it shrink a pool of resources without infringing anyones rights? YES.

Sticking our head in the sand and acting like the status quo is good enough is irrational.

[.blank cd]

They dont get it. Again, i find the opposition just flat out funny.I'm just gonna face facts man, anyone who is inclined to think a couple extra regulations equates to government removal of arms and nullification of the 2nd amendment probably should have their gun removed.

I fully agree with treating used guns the same as new ones, just like all cars are treated the same with respect to registration. I'd even go one step further to include some kind of criminal liability for NOT filing said form, especially if something seriously criminal happened with said gun. Like if I sold you a gun without either of us filing the paperwork, and you go mow down a movie theater, I could be held partially responsible. That would at least discourage some people from buying and some from selling if they know it can be traced back to them.

[Vteckidd]

at the very least it would prompt citizens to be more RESPONSIBLE about who they sell to, and about what they are selling. It would also shift the responsibility to the licensed FFL dealers, which should be handling all firearm transactions anyway.

FUN FACT:
Adventure Outdoors takes trade ins of used guns. They then resell those used guns. When you buy a used gun from AO, you must fill out 4473 and a background check same as buying a NEW gun. are you guys against that business practice?

[.blank cd]

ADVENTURE OUTDOORS IS A LIBREL SHIL ATTEMPTING TO SHIT ON THE CONSTITUTION. OBAMA.

[bu villain]

Read up on it. Many legal experts have stated the same list that I just gave you - I copied one of their notes and put it above. It's not something that I made up.

I have tried to find a comprehensive list of those who want to ban guns but have been unable to find such a list. Since I don't have time to go to every individual website, do you know of a such a list? Also, could you please explain why 70% of congress and the President voted to allow guns in federal parks if so many of them are completely against all guns?


I agree that the Constitution overrides all treaties. Case law specifically supports that. And of course the President is not able to authorize a treaty without Congress. We have those checks and balances in place....

Then why are you so worried if the president wants to ban guns or not? It could be his number one priority but the president doesn't have the power to do it without congress anyway.

[Sinfix_15]

Politicians want to get rid of guns, not just lower crime rate. The agenda of some is strictly that they want to get rid of guns and they use a tragedy like this to support their agenda. Gun owners have a right to be defensive on this issue, we recognize the campaign against guns.

[David88vert]

You have some data on this? Or am I correct in assuming you pulled this vast majority figure out of your ass?

Yes. Look at NYC and DC gun crime stats. The majority of guns currently used in the commision of crimes are not registered to the criminal. Bloomberg, who wants to ban all guns, can supply you the latest NYC figures, as they change daily. It's the same across the country.

[David88vert]

They dont get it. Again, i find the opposition just flat out funny.

NEW FIREARM PURCHASE RULES- Register serial number through licensed FFL= Perfectly ok
USED FIREARM PURCHASES- No laws or regulations or requirements= OK

Asking all firearms to be treated the same = YOURE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS! YOU ARE INFRINGING UPON MY RIGHTS! GOVERNMENT WILL COME TAKE MY ARMS!

its stupid, its dumb, its absolute bullshit, itll never happen. I dont know how a group can rationalize the standards for 1 instance, but then act like that same requirement is some big brother gun grab that violates the founding fathers wishes.

No one is saying people cant own firearms, or cant purchase guns. But streamlining ownership records so LEO doesnt waste time tracking down 3-4 owners down the road is worth it in the end.

Let me ask you guys this. What if James Holmes had bought his guns used, legally. what if he was 3-4 people down the road? What if he didnt give up? LEO would be chasing down 3-4-5 people to get to the current owner. Isnt that a waste of resources? Tax payer money ?

Having a singular standard is responsible, its not infringing upon anything because all people still have the right to own their gun

Mike, it is a valid argument. I just don't like the end result of giving the government a list of firearms. No good has ever come of it before, so why would this be different?

[David88vert]

History proves you wrong, the last 4 largest massacres were LEGAL registered weapons. So yes, criminals do register guns.


dumb argument is dumb. I have NEVER SAID it would have prevented someone from killing someone. On the contrary, ive said it would most certainly NOT have prevented Aurora. The fact that you and everyone else keeps double talking and bringing this up like gun control=crimes abolished is just flat out skewing and manipulating words.

no one has said that Gun Registration= problem solved, with all due respect, stop saying that. its a lie.

All im saying is that bad guys exploit weaknesses, there is a huge weakness in the used gun market. We should close it. Will it prevent gun massacres? NOPE. Will it shrink a pool of resources without infringing anyones rights? YES.

Sticking our head in the sand and acting like the status quo is good enough is irrational.

Actually, they were legal citizens before they purchased. They were not criminals. This is not Minority Report. We do not have a way to see the future, so it is likely that all of these killings would have still happened.

So, we have a known problem, but our actions won't result in a solution. That is irrational.

IE - We have a hole in the dam leaking water. Let's make a list of all of the lightbulbs in the building...

[David88vert]

I'm just gonna face facts man, anyone who is inclined to think a couple extra regulations equates to government removal of arms and nullification of the 2nd amendment probably should have their gun removed.

I fully agree with treating used guns the same as new ones, just like all cars are treated the same with respect to registration. I'd even go one step further to include some kind of criminal liability for NOT filing said form, especially if something seriously criminal happened with said gun. Like if I sold you a gun without either of us filing the paperwork, and you go mow down a movie theater, I could be held partially responsible. That would at least discourage some people from buying and some from selling if they know it can be traced back to them.

That's a given. The government would have to have some sort of penalty for non-compliance. Otherwise, what would be the point of stating a new law?

[David88vert]

I have tried to find a comprehensive list of those who want to ban guns but have been unable to find such a list. Since I don't have time to go to every individual website, do you know of a such a list? Also, could you please explain why 70% of congress and the President voted to allow guns in federal parks if so many of them are completely against all guns?



Then why are you so worried if the president wants to ban guns or not? It could be his number one priority but the president doesn't have the power to do it without congress anyway.

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

[Vteckidd]

Actually, they were legal citizens before they purchased. They were not criminals. This is not Minority Report. We do not have a way to see the future, so it is likely that all of these killings would have still happened.

So, we have a known problem, but our actions won't result in a solution. That is irrational.

IE - We have a hole in the dam leaking water. Let's make a list of all of the lightbulbs in the building...

the whole point of this thread isnt to stop gun massacres, its to close LOOP HOLES IN THE SECURITY OF SELLING USED FIREARMS.

Or we can wait for straw purchases to start showing up in gun massacres and THEN we can talk about it :P

[Vteckidd]

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

well Rahm Emmanuel in 2008 said that only the military should own weapons not private citizens. I cant find a clip of the video but i have seen it. He was the CHief of Staff (or on his way) at that point. Thats pretty high up.

I would say theres a small small group of people devoted to banning firearms outright, but a larger minority supports heavy regulation on them as a means to banning. But the overwhelming majority is against it at this point.

if it was REALLY on the Dems agenda they had 2 years to do it and didnt even take up legislation on gun control.

If you have a problem with national registry on firearms, i assume you dont buy any weapons anymore, becuase all new weapons are serialized. Eventually all weapons will belong to the master registry. I mean techincally any weapon kinda is on a master list because the way it works is

Manufacturer makes gun, issues serial number
Must keep records of all serial numbers and weapons issued for ATF
Guns are sold via Serial number to Dealer
Dealer has to keep records for (I THINK) up to 10 years.
ATF audits every 3-5 years


So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.

[Sinfix_15]

the whole point of this thread isnt to stop gun massacres, its to close LOOP HOLES IN THE SECURITY OF SELLING USED FIREARMS.

Or we can wait for straw purchases to start showing up in gun massacres and THEN we can talk about it :P

You cant prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. Increased gun registration will not effect crime in any way shape or form. The left wants to get rid of guns. They wanted to get rid of guns before any of these shootings took place. They dont want to lower crime, they want to get rid of guns. Maybe in their mind they think getting rid of guns will lower crime, but at some point that idea shifted from lowering crime to specifically getting rid of guns. I've been watching the news all week listening to people talk about getting rid of guns, not lowering crime.

To me, this is a very scary thought. Because i will only give up my gun.... at gun point.

[bu villain]

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

True it is not direct proof but really, why would they vote to loosen gun restrictions if there goal was the extreme opposite?


Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

Of course he can try but he can only go so far. I don't think there is any chance he could make enough deals to ban guns no matter how hard he tried.

[bu villain]

To me, this is a very scary thought. Because i will only give up my gun.... at gun point.

What if the second amendment was repealed? Do you think your right to own a gun is a god given right or a constitutional right?

[BanginJimmy]

So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.


Simple concepts seem to be the hardest for people to figure out. Some people just cant grasp the idea that a paper trail with the private transfer of a firearm protects both the seller and buyer.

[Sinfix_15]

What if the second amendment was repealed? Do you think your right to own a gun is a god given right or a constitutional right?

I dont believe in God, but i feel we all have the fundamental right to defend ourselves. i shouldnt have to rely on someone else to protect me. Nobody can give me my life back if someone takes it from me, therefor nobody should make a decision for me based on my safety.

I was watching Piers Morgan the other night and realized just how out of touch with society he and the rest of the media are. He said, in response to a question about gun ownership preventing home invasions " so we should just give everyone and gun and let them kill anyone who tries to burglarize their house ".....

and i thought........ yes... absolutely.................................

If someone breaks into my home while im here, they will be killed. They deserve to be killed. Every time some idiot does something stupid with a gun the media has a fire storm and starts up about gun control. Why dont they report about the 8,000 home invasions that happen a day in the united states or that 1 in 5 homes will experience a burglary based on statistics. The police presence is not enough and never will be enough to be at every place all the time. People have the fundamental right to defend themselves. 60% of all rapes happen during home invasion. In my own personal experience, me owning a gun prevented my fiance from being raped and/or murdered by an attempted home invasion. They should make every supporter of gun control move into a house in downtown atlanta and put a sign in their front yard that says "i do not own any guns".

[David88vert]

the whole point of this thread isnt to stop gun massacres, its to close LOOP HOLES IN THE SECURITY OF SELLING USED FIREARMS.

Or we can wait for straw purchases to start showing up in gun massacres and THEN we can talk about it :P

Cost vs benefit.
It will be extremely costly to upgrade systems (hardware and software), hire additional staff, etc. What is the benefit to the American people (where the money will have to come from)? Since they won't be any safer, why should they foot the bill?

[David88vert]

well Rahm Emmanuel in 2008 said that only the military should own weapons not private citizens. I cant find a clip of the video but i have seen it. He was the CHief of Staff (or on his way) at that point. Thats pretty high up.

I would say theres a small small group of people devoted to banning firearms outright, but a larger minority supports heavy regulation on them as a means to banning. But the overwhelming majority is against it at this point.

if it was REALLY on the Dems agenda they had 2 years to do it and didnt even take up legislation on gun control.

If you have a problem with national registry on firearms, i assume you dont buy any weapons anymore, becuase all new weapons are serialized. Eventually all weapons will belong to the master registry. I mean techincally any weapon kinda is on a master list because the way it works is

Manufacturer makes gun, issues serial number
Must keep records of all serial numbers and weapons issued for ATF
Guns are sold via Serial number to Dealer
Dealer has to keep records for (I THINK) up to 10 years.
ATF audits every 3-5 years


So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.

Are you suggesting to not make it retroactive to all firearms? If you are, then you have to filter out guns not already in the system. If you want all firearms included, how are you planning on haqndling the transactional history of the "gun show" buy, where it is not already in the system?

[David88vert]

True it is not direct proof but really, why would they vote to loosen gun restrictions if there goal was the extreme opposite?



Of course he can try but he can only go so far. I don't think there is any chance he could make enough deals to ban guns no matter how hard he tried.

I''m not saying that they need to loosen restrictions. There is no need to tighten restrictions on legal owners.
Tougher, ENFORCED penalties for criminals would accomplish more.

I agree that Obama does not have the clout to ban them currently. He has stated that he wants to make progress after re-election though, which is a scary thought. He still won't have the deal making power, but could set the groundwork for future presidents. We need to always be vigilant of our government's actions - that is your civic duty.

[David88vert]

What if the second amendment was repealed? Do you think your right to own a gun is a god given right or a constitutional right?

It is a Constitutional right, and would make criminals out of millions. You might possibley see another revolution out of it though.

[David88vert]

Simple concepts seem to be the hardest for people to figure out. Some people just cant grasp the idea that a paper trail with the private transfer of a firearm protects both the seller and buyer.

If you worked in the IT field, you would know that keeping a complete transactional history of this many objects is not simple. Just getting the basic requirements agreed to would take months, not to mention implementation and maintenance.

[David88vert]

They should make every supporter of gun control move into a house in downtown atlanta and put a sign in their front yard that says "i do not own any guns".

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/gunsign.jpg

Gun control yard sign - snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=59238)

[bu villain]

I dont believe in God, but i feel we all have the fundamental right to defend ourselves.

I think most people would agree with the right to defend yourself. However, most would not agree that society shouldn't be able to place any controls or safeguards on things which may be used in the name of self-defense. We all draw the line in different places.

[bu villain]

I''m not saying that they need to loosen restrictions. There is no need to tighten restrictions on legal owners.
Tougher, ENFORCED penalties for criminals would accomplish more.

Now this is a reasonable position to bring to a discussion. What I don't respect is people who immediately dismiss any sort of new regulations out of hand without even considering the pros and cons and use fear of extremes to discredit even the smallest changes.

[BanginJimmy]

If you worked in the IT field, you would know that keeping a complete transactional history of this many objects is not simple. Just getting the basic requirements agreed to would take months, not to mention implementation and maintenance.

Im not saying it would be easy but its far from impossible.

A database that is searchable ONLY by serial number would also be a deterrence for those that try to sell stolen guns.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[David88vert]

Im not saying it would be easy but its far from impossible.

A database that is searchable ONLY by serial number would also be a deterrence for those that try to sell stolen guns.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

No such thing is possible. Any large database, like Oracle, will have DBA's that have access to all information. Unless you only kept a list of serial numbers, everything would have the potential to be exposed. If you had a list without the transactional history, what would be the point of the list?

Anything that you have a collection of information, and it has an outside access point, there is a security risk. Period.

BTW - They already have lists of stolen guns, what the discussion is about is a list of legal owners.

[BanginJimmy]

No such thing is possible. Any large database, like Oracle, will have DBA's that have access to all information. Unless you only kept a list of serial numbers, everything would have the potential to be exposed. If you had a list without the transactional history, what would be the point of the list?

Anything that you have a collection of information, and it has an outside access point, there is a security risk. Period.

BTW - They already have lists of stolen guns, what the discussion is about is a list of legal owners.


Its obvious I'm no IT guru, but I find it hard to believe that users, not talking administrators, cannot have read only access to a database that is searchable by serial number only.

I do understand security risks, I think the risk is minimal if the database is read only to outside users and only searchable with serial number, maybe even make, model, and serial number.

I understand this is about legal guns, but legal guns that are stolen sometimes end up at pawn shops. If you were here for the early part of this thread, I also am in favor of legal penalties if you fail to report a lost/stolen firearm.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/gunsign.jpg

Gun control yard sign - snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=59238)

that is epic. Made my day

[Sinfix_15]

I think most people would agree with the right to defend yourself. However, most would not agree that society shouldn't be able to place any controls or safeguards on things which may be used in the name of self-defense. We all draw the line in different places.

We live in a country controlled by a government that has enough bombs to destroy the planet we live on, that sells billions of dollars of guns to conflict nations a year, that spends more than 50% of our taxes on military and they want to tell me that my AR15 is not suitable for self defense.

[bu villain]

We live in a country controlled by a government that has enough bombs to destroy the planet we live on, that sells billions of dollars of guns to conflict nations a year, that spends more than 50% of our taxes on military and they want to tell me that my AR15 is not suitable for self defense.

I don't understand your argument. How does having a huge national military translate into private citizens needing AR-15s? If anything, our huge standing army is a reason you don't need an AR-15.

[RL...]

I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but I think our country would be better off if it were illegal for anyone other than military/police to obtain them. If your average joe shmoe couldn't buy a gun than murder, rape, burglary, all of that stuff would drastically be reduced. Most people wouldn't commit the crimes they do if they weren't able to hide behind a gun. We wouldn't have to worry about columbine shootings, movie theater shootings, someone breaking into our house and shooting us or robbing us at gunpoint.

Would this stop all crime? No. And I'm sure some people would still manage to get guns here and there, but by and far I think the greatly reduced crime rates would justify breaking this constitutional rule.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't understand your argument. How does having a huge national military translate into private citizens needing AR-15s? If anything, our huge standing army is a reason you don't need an AR-15.

if our huge standing army was standing on our own soil, i probably wouldnt. But having a massive army guarding the boarders of Pakistan doesnt make me feel any safer in Georgia.

[Sinfix_15]

I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but I think our country would be better off if it were illegal for anyone other than military/police to obtain them. If your average joe shmoe couldn't buy a gun than murder, rape, burglary, all of that stuff would drastically be reduced. Most people wouldn't commit the crimes they do if they weren't able to hide behind a gun. We wouldn't have to worry about columbine shootings, movie theater shootings, someone breaking into our house and shooting us or robbing us at gunpoint.

Would this stop all crime? No. And I'm sure some people would still manage to get guns here and there, but by and far I think the greatly reduced crime rates would justify breaking this constitutional rule.

with all do respect....... you are a fucking moron. I hope i never live to see the day that you get your wish.

[RL...]

with all do respect....... you are a fucking moron. I hope i never live to see the day that you get your wish.

You're the guy who got pissed off and felt violated because people going to a funeral were holding up traffic. It's obvious you have no idea of what decency is nor how to be a respectful person so what do you know? You're as emotional as a girl going through puberty.





Back on topic...yes more gun control like having titles associated with them makes sense. People would be less likely to do stupid shit if it was easy to trace guns back to the last owner.

[Sinfix_15]

You're the guy who got pissed off and felt violated because people going to a funeral were holding up traffic. It's obvious you have no idea of what decency is nor how to be a respectful person so what do you know? You're as emotional as a girl going through puberty.





Back on topic...yes more gun control like having titles associated with them makes sense. People would be less likely to do stupid shit if it was easy to trace guns back to the last owner.

Rape is illegal. doesnt stop rape.
Murder is illegal. doesnt stop murder.
Theft is illegal. doesnt stop theft.

8,000 home invasions happen a day in the US. 60% of all rapes happen during home invasion.

Making guns illegal would only take the gun out of your hand, not the criminal. If the government ever decides to ban guns.... then i suggest we all round up our guns..............................





























and use them on the government.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html

read this article about a family that was killed during a home invasion. A man who witnessed his wife and daughters get raped and murdered, then beat and left for dead. No law will ever protect you. No matter how good the police ever become, they will never be at every single house every single hour of the day. You're welcome to leave your life up to chance if you want, i respect your decision. If someone breaks into your house, call the police. If they break into mine, call a coroner.

[Vteckidd]

I know the right to bear arms is in the constitution, but I think our country would be better off if it were illegal for anyone other than military/police to obtain them. If your average joe shmoe couldn't buy a gun than murder, rape, burglary, all of that stuff would drastically be reduced. Most people wouldn't commit the crimes they do if they weren't able to hide behind a gun. We wouldn't have to worry about columbine shootings, movie theater shootings, someone breaking into our house and shooting us or robbing us at gunpoint.

You cant UNINVENT the firearm. Its been around for 300+ years? Some form of a projectile firing mechanism has been around since the dark ages (catapults, etc). Banning guns would only enable the criminals. Look at the crime rates in the UK , a place that bans firearms, or NY, or DC. If they outlawed Gasoline engines tomorrow do you think no one would ever make another gas engine ever again? Hell no.

The answer to stopping crime is making it more efficient for LEO to fight crime, hence why i said the ban on all private sales unless its through a dealer, and keep updated records of the owners of the weapons. Its just responsible.

[RL...]

I already said the banning on guns isn't going to happen and I i know we can't uninvent the firearm. It's far too late to ban firearms at this point. BUT I think the world would be a better place without them. Just like I think the world would be a better place without religion, but that's for another thread.

The answer to stopping crime is you can't. As long as guns are in existence people are going to get shot, and that fact will never change. But adding more protective and security measures to the sale and ownership would be a good start.

[RL...]

Rape is illegal. doesnt stop rape.
Murder is illegal. doesnt stop murder.
Theft is illegal. doesnt stop theft.

8,000 home invasions happen a day in the US. 60% of all rapes happen during home invasion.

Making guns illegal would only take the gun out of your hand, not the criminal. If the government ever decides to ban guns.... then i suggest we all round up our guns..............................


and use them on the government
Petit Family Killings News - The New York Times (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html)

read this article about a family that was killed during a home invasion. A man who witnessed his wife and daughters get raped and murdered, then beat and left for dead. No law will ever protect you. No matter how good the police ever become, they will never be at every single house every single hour of the day. You're welcome to leave your life up to chance if you want, i respect your decision. If someone breaks into your house, call the police. If they break into mine, call a coroner.

lol
You and your wife have a much higher chance of dying from heart disease than getting raped or murdered in your house. In my 24 years of life I have never had my place of residence been broken into, and I've lived in more than 5 different homes, in more than 5 states. So think your "1 in 5" stats are little off.

In regards to that article, it's truly tragic, but its hard to say if a gun would've saved them. If they break in and shove their gun to your face, you won't have time to get your gun. Even if you did, most people who buy guns aren't trained to use them properly.

[ahabion]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

[.blank cd]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.If a little extra regulation saved one human life, would you consider that a success?

[RL...]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

I also said it's a good start, a step in the right direction. Of course gun control can't stop crime. No one can be so obtuse as to think like that. The point is that it should help deter some, not all, some criminals from doing heinous acts.

[Vteckidd]

So to your own admission, putting more regulation or promoting gun control will not stop crime. Crimes will continue to happen with or without gun control... So what is the point of it?

It's not guns that kill people... it's people who kill other people. Guns are amoral.

BANNING GUNS WONT SOLVE CRIME, SO WE SHOULD JUST GIVE MACHINE GUNS TO EVERYONE, FUCK IT



AMUURRRICA

[bu villain]

if our huge standing army was standing on our own soil, i probably wouldnt. But having a massive army guarding the boarders of Pakistan doesnt make me feel any safer in Georgia.

Feeling safer is not the same as being safer and unless you are worried about a foreign invasion, I still don't see what the military has to do with this. Do you have any evidence that shows gun owners are actually safer? How about data showing assault rifle owners are safer than handgun owners? While it wouldn't end the debate, those would be good reasons to allow assault rifles.

[bu villain]

Rape is illegal. doesnt stop rape.
Murder is illegal. doesnt stop murder.
Theft is illegal. doesnt stop theft.

So legalise rape, murder, and theft because the laws don't completely stop bad things from happening? Or are you agreeing that laws can still be a good idea even if they don't stop all related crime?

[Vteckidd]

So legalise rape, murder, and theft because the laws don't completely stop bad things from happening? Or are you agreeing that laws can still be a good idea even if they don't stop all related crime?

its a bad comparison, because no one offers RAPE as a product that you can purchase and then use at your own free will to commit a crime. RAPE doesnt have multi billion dollar lobbying firms in DC.

Rape is Illegal, but Sex is not. The only thing that makes RAPE illegal is a person not wanting to have sex and its forced on them. Comparing that to firearms just doesnt make any sense.

Again the point everyone keeps missing is that i never once said guns should be banned. I never once said that registering used weapons would prevent massacres or gun violence. I never said that was the only answer. So stop thinking in broad 1 action strokes.

I dont think anyone can logically argue that USED firearms shouldnt be treated just like NEW firearms. They cause the same damage, they demand the same respect, they should be registered JUST LIKE A NEW WEAPON ANYTIME YOU BUY ONE.

Its irrational to think otherwise. It no more presents a GUN GRAB than the current NEW weapons being sold are subject to the same kind of tactics a VERY VERy small minority in congress may want to see happen. It changes nothing. It does however allow LEO to operate more efficiently.

WHere is all the bleeding heart GOP "DONT WASTE MY TAX DOLLARS" BULLSHIT NOW? Dont you agree that LEO chasing down gun owners through 3-4 people is a waste of resources?

Imagine if we didnt recquire any registration on cars? No bill of sale, no title transfer, and we didnt care? Dont you think hit and run accidents would be almost impossible to control?

[.blank cd]

its a bad comparison, because no one offers RAPE as a product that you can purchase and then use at your own free will.Speak for yourself, I sell rape.

[Vteckidd]

Speak for yourself, I sell rape.

do you offer monthly installment plans?

[.blank cd]

do you offer monthly installment plans?

I accept all major credit cards and EBT/SNAP

[ahabion]

I already said the banning on guns isn't going to happen and I i know we can't uninvent the firearm. It's far too late to ban firearms at this point. BUT I think the world would be a better place without them. Just like I think the world would be a better place without religion, but that's for another thread.

The answer to stopping crime is you can't. As long as guns are in existence people are going to get shot, and that fact will never change. But adding more protective and security measures to the sale and ownership would be a good start.

Don't we already have protective and security measures in place?



BANNING GUNS WONT SOLVE CRIME, SO WE SHOULD JUST GIVE MACHINE GUNS TO EVERYONE, FUCK IT



AMUURRRICA

knowing that the people have machine guns and everyone around them has guns... I'd say that would deter the feint of heart or atleast the wannabes. Very extreme case but not suggesting no regulation either. Would people still get killed? Of course but I'm not saying banning guns completely is an option either. What I am saying is that if we got smarter about it, we could fnd a much better solution instead of guns or no guns. There are current laws in place, why punish law abiding citizens by making them the bad guys?

[Sinfix_15]

lol
You and your wife have a much higher chance of dying from heart disease than getting raped or murdered in your house. In my 24 years of life I have never had my place of residence been broken into, and I've lived in more than 5 different homes, in more than 5 states. So think your "1 in 5" stats are little off.

In regards to that article, it's truly tragic, but its hard to say if a gun would've saved them. If they break in and shove their gun to your face, you won't have time to get your gun. Even if you did, most people who buy guns aren't trained to use them properly.

Clearly you dont understand statistics.

I've had 3 incidents in my lifetime that required me to pull a gun on my property. More importantly than any of those 3, my fiance deterred someone attempting to break in the house when she was home alone by grabbing my shotgun. Strangely......... yelling "im calling the police" had no effect.... but cocking and aiming a shotgun made them run away. She wasnt properly trained to use a gun and didnt even have to fire a gun, the presence of a gun prevented an attack.

8000 home invasions happen a day in the US. That is not a made up statistic. If you wish to play the odds and say "it'll never happen to me". good for you, someone breaks into my house while i am here, they will die. I wont shed one tear for them. I'll attend their funeral for the sole purpose of telling their parents that they did a shitty job raising a criminal. After that, i'll treat myself to a steak dinner to celebrate the fact that the world has 1 less scumbag in it.

[Sinfix_15]

Feeling safer is not the same as being safer and unless you are worried about a foreign invasion, I still don't see what the military has to do with this. Do you have any evidence that shows gun owners are actually safer? How about data showing assault rifle owners are safer than handgun owners? While it wouldn't end the debate, those would be good reasons to allow assault rifles.

What makes one rifle any more dangerous than the next? should we ban AR15s because they simply look more dangerous? A rifle is a rifle. People use rifles in a variety of ways. In my own personal opinion, a shotgun is the single most effective home defense weapon.

[Sinfix_15]

BANNING GUNS WONT SOLVE CRIME, SO WE SHOULD JUST GIVE MACHINE GUNS TO EVERYONE, FUCK IT



AMUURRRICA

I'll be stocking up just in case. WTB AR15s!

[bu villain]

its a bad comparison, because no one offers RAPE as a product that you can purchase and then use at your own free will to commit a crime. RAPE doesnt have multi billion dollar lobbying firms in DC.

I agree. It was Sinflix who made that comparison. I was merely pointing out that his assumption that the only purpose of a law is to stop crime is not entirely correct.

[bu villain]

What makes one rifle any more dangerous than the next? should we ban AR15s because they simply look more dangerous? A rifle is a rifle. People use rifles in a variety of ways. In my own personal opinion, a shotgun is the single most effective home defense weapon.

I agree, one rifle isn't that different than the next. Actually handguns are probably more dangerous than semi-auto AR-15s. Now full autos are a different story. Our disagreement isn't whether AR-15s are crossing the line of what individuals should be allowed to own, it's that you say there should be no line drawn at all for any weapon.

[Sinfix_15]

If a little extra regulation saved one human life, would you consider that a success?

if a little extra regulation allowed one person to be raped or murdered, would you consider that a failure?

[Sinfix_15]

I agree. It was Sinflix who made that comparison. I was merely pointing out that his assumption that the only purpose of a law is to stop crime is not entirely correct.

My point is that laws have no effect on criminals. Banning guns will not remove guns from the hands of a criminal.

[Vteckidd]

So heres another stupid fact.

If you pawn your gun at a pawn shop, did you know that when you pick it up, YOU MUST PASS A BACKGROUND CHECK AGAIN? This is FEDERAL LAW.

So we recquire you to pass a background check to reclaim your used gun, but we dont require used guns to have a background check. SMART.

/sarcasm

[bu villain]

My point is that laws have no effect on criminals. Banning guns will not remove guns from the hands of a criminal.

1. No one here is proposing an all out gun ban.
2. Gun regulation is still a good idea even if criminals can still get their hands on one
3. Laws do have effects on criminals. We can argue if the effects are good/bad or effective/inneffective but there are effects.

[ahabion]

If a little extra regulation saved one human life, would you consider that a success?

Depends how measureable that regulation is.

I would say Welfare is, at this point of our society, a huge failure but as a former benefactor and product of welfare, I can say that I'm a success story of it. Still wouldn't consider it a success. More to the point, more regulation does not, by default, make it (the regulation) a success by saving a human life but rather the overall benefactors of the regulation. You would have to be able to measure how the regulation 'saved' lives versus the many more variables where it didn't 'save' lives. Then the outliers where guns prevented deaths.

In thinking more about it, it almost seems like we're attacking the wrong problem. I'll have to think about it some more and come back...