Alright, let's go ahead and talk about Obama's gun control proposals

[ParkingWitch]

PepperElf you are right, I should have left off the second statement.

But how often have we seen the people that argue against any type of gun control being perfectly fine with questionable acts that would not affect themselves.

I am sure that there have been discussions of warent-less searches and wire taps.

[PepperElf]

Parkingwitch: thank you. And yes, I'm sure there have been discussions on that. I'm definitely not for warrantless searches.

Confiscation in CA - yeah I was thinking about that one too.

Car comparison - inaccurate. You CAN have an unregistered car. You just can't drive it on a public road. Many of these gun-control measures however would affect what you do on private property.


Oh and yeah NYC's ban... to be honest in my opinion the "7 round" limit was just so that they could include regular handguns. They tried to redefine "high capacity" - which is another one of those buzzwords (control the language and you control the debate) - so that they can declare many regular handguns to be illegal.

The only reasons for registration is taxing and confiscation.

indeed.

Don't even get me started on paying attention to "history". History says the second amendment is obsolete and was never intended for the type of weaponry available in this day and age.

You mean the mythical "sporting use" clause?


Then again, if you want to talk about "intensions" I also suggest looking up the original intentions on gun control laws.

http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

[Gravekeeper]

Then again, if you want to talk about "intensions" I also suggest looking up the original intentions on gun control laws.

http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

A) What did that have to do with anything?
B) It was written by a guy that has an entire wiki page devoted to his fradulent reseach practices.

So, yeah. Dubius bullshit at best.

[PepperElf]

a - you started talking about intentions.
b - just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's wrong or baseless.

but i suspect it does make it easier to discount opposing views that way

[Gravekeeper]

a - you started talking about intentions.
b - just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's wrong or baseless.

but i suspect it does make it easier to discount opposing views that way

Are you serious? Its not a matter of like or dislike. You provided a reference from a person who is a known fraud specifically for his unethical research practices. IE he lies to try and support a thesis he made up. Whether I "like" his thesis or not is totally irrelevant. I always check sources in a debate both my own and other people's.

Yet you have the nerve to not only provide a fradulent source, but dismiss and insult people's character when they point out your mistake? How are we suppose to take your positions here seriously if you're using fradulent references and trying to hand wave away anyone that points it out? Like they're the bad guy for discovering how dubious your source is.

[Hyena Dandy]

GK, can I see the page devoted to his fraudulent practices? I couldn't find anything. I see something about him criticizing OTHER people's work, I don't see anything about his flawed work.

b - just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's wrong or baseless.
way

The fact that somebody has fraudulent practices does call into question your using them as evidence. GK is saying he doesn't trust it because the person who said it, apparently, has a history of lying about things.

My sister is a liar. She might be a compulsive liar. If she makes a statement, I will probably want to see a better source than her. That's not because I necessarily disagree with her conclusion, quite honestly we agree on a lot of things, but because she lies a lot.

[Tanasi]

But again, you're perfectly fine with all of this if you own a car? This is where the cognitive dissoance gets me on this subject. Why is it acceptable in the case of a vehicle, but not in the case of something potentially more dangerous? You have the right to bear arms, but no obligation to the responsibility to bear them?

There is no one alive today that has experienced even the potential for the kind of situation that inspired the second amendment to begin with. Regardless of how many have convinced themselves the government is coming to take their gunz and put them in a FEMA camp.

Don't even get me started on paying attention to "history". History says the second amendment is obsolete and was never intended for the type of weaponry available in this day and age.

It seems to be the basis for the opposition to gun legislation is paranoia and the result is that any gun legislation that even manages to pass will be so toothless as to only make the situation worse rather than better. As is the system that IS in place has been so completely kneecapped and interfered with by this bullshit as is that it barely functions at all.

But you can't even have a conversation about making the existing system function without this bullshit occuring.

Autos and guns = apples and oranges. Unless I'm going to drive on public roadways I don't have to register nor license my car that's my option and it's perfectly legal. If firearms registration is pushed through I won't have that option and remain law-abiding. That's the difference.

So answer me this: Why does the first amendment cover modern forms of print and communication but the second amendment doesn't cover modern weaponry???
Following your logic then in the third amendment when we're secure in our papers would only apply to physically printed information and not other forms of stored information.

I'll say it again there's no reason for registration but taxation and confiscation.
My county has a wheel tax, according to the county clerk I also have to pay the wheel tax on my farm truck that's never driven on the road, but the state say's it's perfectly legal and I don't have to maintain insurance on it.

BTW, I'm willing to have a conversation regarding firearms, I'm also willing to "listen." I'm more that willing to do what I think is "reasonable." The thing is the anti side doesn't want to listen they want to tell the pro side that we're wrong and we're endangering them and we disagree on what's reasonable. The pro side is not being asked but trying to be force into giving up parts of our rights and property. What do get in return??? That deep down warm feeling for doing what's right??? Hell you might as well piss your pants because it's still the same temporary feeling.

[crashhelmet]

A couple of questions...

1) People here have claimed that U.S. Citizens have had their guns confiscated after registering them. WHY were they confiscated? Are they convicted felons who have lost their rights to own a firearm? Have they been convicted of domestic abuse or anything else that forfeits their right to bear arms?

2) These countries that have gone in an confiscated all weaponry from its citizenry. How big were they? What was their population? What was their civilian to military ratio?

You can buy into the paranoia all you want, but the US military can and will never take over and hold martial law in this country. There are too many people and too much land to cover and hold. They would have to pull in all personnel from the countless bases and deployments around the world.

Not to mention a good portion of the military would side with the people. The Republicans and Libertarians are accusing the Obama administration of trying to instill martial law, but about half of the military is either Republican or Libertarian. Independents take up about 30%

[wolfie]

A couple of questions...

1) People here have claimed that U.S. Citizens have had their guns confiscated after registering them. WHY were they confiscated? Are they convicted felons who have lost their rights to own a firearm? Have they been convicted of domestic abuse or anything else that forfeits their right to bear arms?

I've seen it on Fratching (possibly in this thread) that California banned certain firearms unless they were registered by a certain date. They then extended the registration period, a court ruled they couldn't, and they proceeded to confiscatesteal any that were registered during the extension period. In short, people who relied on the government's assurance "if you register your guns, you can keep them" wound up having the government use the list of registered guns to track them down and take them.

[crashhelmet]

I've seen it on Fratching (possibly in this thread) that California banned certain firearms unless they were registered by a certain date. They then extended the registration period, a court ruled they couldn't, and they proceeded to confiscatesteal any that were registered during the extension period. In short, people who relied on the government's assurance "if you register your guns, you can keep them" wound up having the government use the list of registered guns to track them down and take them.

The only thing I've seen dealing with California confiscating guns from registered users was confiscating them from people who were no longer legally allowed to possess them.
Articles like this:
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...bear-arms.html

They were criminals, illegally in possession of firearms. They were not law abiding citizens

EDIT: Non-Mobile Link

[Tanasi]

It's been a long time and I didn't remember the story correctly but here is the real low down. In NY. The New Orleans police was going door to door illegally searching for and confiscating firearms following Katrina. It took years to get those firearms returned to the rightful owner and the NOPD and Mayors office tried several tricks and tactics to slow down or stop that. It was only after NRA and others filed suit that the NO problem was somewhat resolved.
Now Connecticut wants to have a magazine registry. Very very few mags are serial numbered and those usually have either the whole or partial serial number of the firearm they are intended for (I have a Russian made target pistol that is so marked.) I know of no mags made within the last 10 years that have dates of manufacture on them. Some are stamped LEO or Military only but that expired nearly 10 years ago in 2004 so those are grandfathered. A mag registry is beyond stupid.
I don't remember which states but I think MD was one that required for handguns a fired cartridge from that handgun be turned in to the state for ballistic ID. The idea being the LEOs could ID the handgun that fired the round from the brass left behind. Guess what??? that ballistic data base was used very few times and it never ID'd one gun. All that money spent for something that's less than useless.
Now several states are talking about micro-stamping the fired brass with the guns serial number. OK there's only a few ways this can be accomplished and I can defeat them all by swapping those parts (not expensive) or a little working with a dremel tool. The reps/senators have been told this so why do they persist???
GK how many 100s of millions of dollars was wasted your countries failed gun registration??? It didn't work there and I certainly don't think it would work here.

[Greenday]

The reps/senators have been told this so why do they persist???

Because even though it'll do absolutely nothing, it'll make them feel good and people who are too lazy to look into it will think that they are doing something about the "gun problem".

[wolfie]

Now several states are talking about micro-stamping the fired brass with the guns serial number. OK there's only a few ways this can be accomplished and I can defeat them all by swapping those parts (not expensive) or a little working with a dremel tool. The reps/senators have been told this so why do they persist???

That would require MAJOR re-engineering of the gun, unless they added the "serial stamp" to the firing pin. Of course, using up energy to stamp the serial number would limit the amount available to hit the primer, making the gun less reliable. How would they deal with reloaded cases (common among some groups)? They'd either have multiple serial numbers stamped on them, or (if the most recent gun to use this case were unmodified) only the serial number of a gun unconnected to the shooting in question. Also, I'd like to hear how they intend to get some guns (Colt Patterson, for example - a large-caliber double-action revolver) to mark serial numbers on the fired cases.

[PepperElf]

A couple of questions...

1) IIRC they were also confiscated because the state changed the laws after the guns were registered. Thus, registration made it easier for the government to know where the guns were so... they could take them away

These citizens did nothing wrong. They complied with the laws and they got fucked and had their property taken away.

2) i don't have a complete list. my internet is slow today. but some examples where guns were registered & then confiscated:
UK, Australia, NYC, CA. And keep in mind that they still have firearm violence in those areas.

link although i'm sure there will be some who dislike my link but... the data isn't false.

Plus - well Connecticut is a good example of a fuckup. IIRC there's no "grace period" for turning in weapons. From the moment the bill was signed (via emergency provisions) the guns became illegal. Thus technically anyone turning them in... well they're already "breaking the law" by having them anyway. So in order to truly avoid breaking laws they would have had to turn their firearms in BEFORE the bill was signed, back when they weren't illegal.

Now Connecticut wants to have a magazine registry. Very very few mags are serial numbered

Yep. In fact some tax-stamp-required firearms do NOT have (or have to have) serialized magazines.

I don't remember which states but I think MD was one that required for handguns a fired cartridge from that handgun be turned in to the state for ballistic ID

When I bought my gun it came with a single fired bullet shell. I was told it was a "test shot" to prove it worked or something like that. And that if I'd purchased the gun in say NY, CA or one of those "nanny states", the state would have ownership of that bullet shell, not me. I'd never have even seen it.

And indeed - you can swap parts out on guns. I've already done that to mine. I didn't like the hand grips that came with it and bought a new set. I've considered changing the sites out too because I feel mine are harder to see. But I haven't done it yet.

Because even though it'll do absolutely nothing, it'll make them feel good and people who are too lazy to look into it will think that they are doing something about the "gun problem".

Indeed!

How would they deal with reloaded cases (common among some groups)?

Very much so. I've saved EVERY single shell I've ever fired. Eventually I will probably reload. It's recycling!

which reminds me...

The idea being the LEOs could ID the handgun that fired the round from the brass left behind.

This only works if they leave brass behind. Revolvers aren't as popular these days but ... there's no brass left behind unless someone dumps it on purpose; so for a revolver they'd have to have the gun itself I suppose.

Plus... If they have corrosive ammo that could alter the characteristics of the gun too. a simple scratch can be enough to change the pattern. Or if the ammo is crappy enough (wolf ammo, I'm looking at YOU) it might even blow the gun up.


but speaking of this I'm also reminded of the mentality I sense with the attempt to legislate background checks. it seems to be in part, "well if you're not doing anything illegal then you won't mind putting up with this"

at that point, it's no longer just a "2A" issue but a "4A" issue too. The idea that... "if you don't let us search you must be hiding something!"


Bearing arms is a CIVIL RIGHT just like any other civil right.

[PepperElf]

and since it was asked... other examples of gun civil rights & racism:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-s-racism.html

Author: Adam Winkler is a constitutional-law professor at UCLA.

for much of our history, gun regulation has been tainted by the stains of racism and discrimination

The article goes on to illustrate where gun control was specifically used against minorities. And where police used their "discretion" in order to deny CCW requests - including one from MLK himself.

and yes the article also points out where conservatives supported gun control, so those who dislike conservatives may like those lines too.