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.co...tist/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.......?

[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.

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.