Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree162Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old January 16th, 2013, 12:15 PM   #1 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default The Gun Law Discussion

I'm starting this topic to be the place for discussion about the 2013 gun control movement, and beyond. Please carry on.
pbf98 likes this.

Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Bob Maxey (January 17th, 2013), pbf98 (January 16th, 2013), PrinceCorwin (January 16th, 2013)
sponsored links
Old January 16th, 2013, 03:21 PM   #2 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

OK I'll start. Here are some issues being considered:
  1. Making background checks mandatory for all gun sales.
  2. Limiting "clip" capacity on all guns, regardless of purpose.
  3. Banning all "assault weapons".
  4. Raising the bar on mental health issues.
These are the ones that I keep on hearing. Let's look at them:

1. Background checks and personal liability. While I have no problem with closing this loophole, who's going to administer these checks for inter-personal sales? I can't get behind plans to hold a gun seller criminally liable for what someone down the line (and not necessarily the one you sold to) who commits a crime. What if they put such Draconian laws on all sales of everything? If someone who decides to make toast in the bathtub, is it right to put some salesperson in prison? Methinks the real aim of such laws is to shut down private gun sales entirely. That's not the way to do it, though.

2. Small "clips". Do we really want laws to be made by people who are too lazy to find out the difference between a clip and a magazine? It's one thing when members of the press make mistakes like that. Lawmakers have no excuse for getting involved in issues that they haven't bothered to study first! Because they insist that they're all for home protection, the "clip" ban seems to be a decision that jeopardizes those who, unlike law enforcement and the military, often don't carry extra magazines when they go downstairs to investigate some sound. The argument is always something about hunting, and there are already hunting laws that restrict the capacities of hunting rifles. Why do we need another redundant law? Why didn't they bother to think first?

3. Assault "weapon" bans. This trick wording really has me worried. If it's enacted into law with language like that, having a pair of scissors could be a felony crime! Again, why were they not thinking?

4. Mental health. In an age where drug companies put tons of pressure on physicians to make depression diagnoses, and then put the patient on their drugs, will completely sane people be disqualified for life from their Constitutional rights? Is forcing medical doctors to break doctor-patient confidentiality even lawful?

Just like there's a mandatory "cooling off period" for gun buyers, maybe there should be one for lawmakers who are rushing to pass half-witted laws.
teddyearp, jake111, Ibrick and 5 others like this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Frozin (January 16th, 2013), galaxy501 (April 25th, 2013), PrinceCorwin (January 16th, 2013), reverendfreeze (February 11th, 2013), teddyearp (May 19th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:01 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

I agree, mental health issues are the key here and everything else proposed has proven to be a complete failure in the past. Not sure why it would be different now.

The 'gun show loophole’ there was a survey done of 15k+ fellons who were in prison while in possession of a firearm. .7%, yes less than 1%, of those were purchased at a gun show. 70% were purchased illegally, or had a family member make the purchase. Pretty much split down the middle 35% and 35%. Why so much focus is beyond me besides it sounds like a plausible way to get guns in the hands of criminals regardless of the facts.

High capacity magazines. Why 10? Just make up some arbitrary number apparently. I've seen no studies, evidence, nothing that make this such a major issue with gun control advocates. The only reasoning that makes sense to me is slowly moving that number lower as they did in NY to 7.. Then 5, then 3, then 1, then 0.. Long term gun ban I suppose.

Its the Clinton gun ban all over again.. Only worse, since this actually would ban guns, not just pieces of guns. Essentially, its the 'if it looks scary, it must be illegal' law.

I'm all for safer streets, but mass shootings have not increased, AR's and AK's are not the problem, never were, gun control has never prevented anything, why Obama thinks this is any different is beyond me. Unless, he knows it's useless, and wants to disarm the good, law abiding citizens of this country. Maybe?
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ibrick For This Useful Post:
Drhyde (April 2nd, 2013), galaxy501 (April 25th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

1. I hope they give widespread access to these background checks to private citizens.
2. Just silly. So the shooter has to reload. BFD.
3. Like you, I hope they actually define "assault weapon" pretty well.
4. This make sense in theory, but not in execution. Who defines "mentally ill"? Who has this database? Is there a database somewhere of people who are "mentally ill"?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 16th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:31 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
4. This make sense in theory, but not in execution. Who defines "mentally ill"? Who has this database? Is there a database somewhere of people who are "mentally ill"?
The mentally ill are banned from owning a firearm under current laws. Its people ignoring warning signs, or families not wanting to acknowledge a mental illness that are more the problem.

As for the background checks, statistically the number of guns purchased at gun shows is insignificant. How you prevent illegal sales is the issue, and since the current laws are ignored, why would stricter laws be followed?
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ibrick For This Useful Post:
PrinceCorwin (January 16th, 2013), Speed Daemon (January 16th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:45 PM   #6 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

#2 is what makes me laugh every time, it shows how uneducated the politicians are on the facts. A "clip" or a "magazine clip" is not what feeds the gun bullets. And I have heard even president Obama say he want's to ban "high capacity magazine clips".
The a clip / magazine clip, is something that is often used to make reloading of magazines faster. To my knowledge they come in lengths to hold 5 bullets each clip (I haven't seen any higher capacity). Some bullets come pre-loaded in the clips inside the boxes.

So go ahead and ban these little metal clips, I reload my magazines the hard way anyway lol

But should someone that doesn't even the proper terminology behind their "issues", be able to make laws against them?

Assault weapons is a made up term coined my the mainstream media. As far as the hunting issue you mentioned ie limit for capacity. In my area I can legally use my .223 semi auto ar-15 style pistol with any round capacity on big game, according to my local DNR. It is legally licensed in my name and I have the permit to carry it on the street being it is legally defined as a handgun.
pbf98 is offline  
Last edited by pbf98; January 16th, 2013 at 04:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2013, 04:59 PM   #7 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
High capacity magazines. Why 10? Just make up some arbitrary number apparently. I've seen no studies, evidence, nothing that make this such a major issue with gun control advocates.
Yes, the number does appear to be arbitrary. And back when that was the law, it posed real danger to people who had purchased smaller caliber pistols that had been designed to hold as many as 15 rounds in a normal, non-extended magazine. But they were forced to keep their chosen (and legal) method of defense in a crippled state in order to obey the law. That's not right!

Now we have people using straw man rationalizations, saying that "nobody needs that many bullets for hunting." Well self-defense is not hunting!

It looks like the driving force behind this latest prohibition movement is TV pundits who don't know what they're talking about. As a scientist I'm shocked and disappointed to see that real experts aren't being invited into the discussion at any level.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2013, 05:13 PM   #8 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Who defines "mentally ill"? Who has this database? Is there a database somewhere of people who are "mentally ill"?
This is a real problem, since most of us have some minor condition that's technically a mental illness. Is a fear of heights really a just reason to revoke someone's Constitutional rights?

One plan makes it mandatory for mental health professionals to report anything and everything that could be used to deny gun ownership. After a long, hard fight to protect private health records under HIPAA, the last thing I want to see is rumors about my mental health being made public, or health care professionals reporting everyone in a CYA move! Mental illness is still a stigma. If they start reporting it like credit reports (which are notoriously wrong), a lot of innocent people who don't even care about firearms could end up being blacklisted in the job market.

This is a Pandora's Box that needs to be treated with due care.
Ibrick likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Ibrick (January 16th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 06:09 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
This is a real problem, since most of us have some minor condition that's technically a mental illness. Is a fear of heights really a just reason to revoke someone's Constitutional rights?

One plan makes it mandatory for mental health professionals to report anything and everything that could be used to deny gun ownership. After a long, hard fight to protect private health records under HIPAA, the last thing I want to see is rumors about my mental health being made public, or health care professionals reporting everyone in a CYA move! Mental illness is still a stigma. If they start reporting it like credit reports (which are notoriously wrong), a lot of innocent people who don't even care about firearms could end up being blacklisted in the job market.

This is a Pandora's Box that needs to be treated with due care.
That's an excellent point, take for example a soldier returning from duty, probably the most well trained of the general public handling firearms, being diagnosed with PTSD. Should they be banned for life? Who would decide when its 'OK' for them to own a firearm?

Lots of angles to examine..
Speed Daemon likes this.
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 16th, 2013, 06:22 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
The mentally ill are banned from owning a firearm under current laws. Its people ignoring warning signs, or families not wanting to acknowledge a mental illness that are more the problem.

As for the background checks, statistically the number of guns purchased at gun shows is insignificant. How you prevent illegal sales is the issue, and since the current laws are ignored, why would stricter laws be followed?
I don't think anyone is a fan of the mentally ill owning weapons. That's something we would probably all agree on. As it is though, there's no database containing the names of everyone who is "mentally ill". Let's say I actually run a gun shop and someone comes in to buy a gun. I run a background check (no problem with that) do I then have to do a psych evaluation on the person to see if they're "mentally ill" or not? How do I as a business owner make that determination? I'm not even close to being qualified.
PrinceCorwin likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 16th, 2013, 07:04 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
PrinceCorwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: League City, Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 598
 
Device(s): LG Spectrum ICS
Carrier: Greedy, Lying Verizon

Thanks: 482
Thanked 100 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I don't think anyone is a fan of the mentally ill owning weapons. That's something we would probably all agree on. As it is though, there's no database containing the names of everyone who is "mentally ill". Let's say I actually run a gun shop and someone comes in to buy a gun. I run a background check (no problem with that) do I then have to do a psych evaluation on the person to see if they're "mentally ill" or not? How do I as a business owner make that determination? I'm not even close to being qualified.
I understand where you're coming from here but I have to stand up for the rights of all the people diagnosed with a mental illness who would NEVER do something like this. Aren't we kind of stereotyping them here by saying none of them should EVER be able to own a gun. I mean, I'm not a fan of someone who is mentally ill having a chainsaw either but I don't want laws preventing them from owning them.

Should we just lock all of them in a padded cell because of the possible future crimes of a select few. I mean, isn't ANYONE who is capable of serial or mass murder (and many other crimes) considered mentally ill? Or do we just call them evil? Is there a difference? I think there is.
So just because Lanza was mentally ill doesn't mean his horrific act was due to that illness. Perhaps he was simply evil.
I don't agree with taking away constitutional rights from people because they are handicapped. All of these laws seem to steer toward an unattainable sense of utopia where we can forsee and prevent each and every possiblity of misdeed by passing laws that make it impossible to commit the deeds.

That just doesn't work. The criminal mind will always come up with a new way to commit crime and the previously passed laws than only cause a greater and greater burden to the good natured law abiding citizen. New laws are like antiviruses. The code gets written in hindsight trying to solve problems of the past. Then they slow down and restrict your system constantly trying to prevent the same instance from happening again. But they never stop the next big thing from invading your daily life suddenly to cause a catastrophe.

And then the answer to that event is always the same: let's just add some more code (which just makes it all the more restrictive)

And the President uses the phrase, "if it saves even one life..."
Actually, I'm not willing to give up my liberties just to save a life, or even many lives. I don't buy the guilt trip. My conscience is clean. Their blood is not on my hands or yours. Don't let the liberals trick you into thinking these tradgedies are your fault because you believe in protecting your freedom.

"Anyone willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
-who said it?
Davdi and Speed Daemon like this.
PrinceCorwin is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PrinceCorwin For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 16th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:38 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

That's a fair enough argument. Certainly it's inaccurate to say that everyone who is mentally ill is violent. I don't disagree with that.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
PrinceCorwin (January 16th, 2013)
Old January 16th, 2013, 08:59 PM   #13 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
That's an excellent point, take for example a soldier returning from duty, probably the most well trained of the general public handling firearms, being diagnosed with PTSD. Should they be banned for life? Who would decide when its 'OK' for them to own a firearm?
PTSD is a tough issue. And with the suicide rate in the US military at an all-time high, we need to be sensitive to those who have been injured mentally by this war.

Another thing to consider is that people who have been trained to use weapons, possibly the only weapons that they've ever seen, to maim and kill people. It may require some retraining for those who were indoctrinated to kill in the name of America to operate under a new set of rules.

But when it comes to people who have never fired a shot in anger, or at a person, I'd hate to see these new laws born of this anti-gun frenzy turn upstanding citizens into outcasts among their peers. People who can no longer go hunting, or something as innocent as plinking and target shooting.

From the medical side it's inexcusable to break promises of confidentiality. I hope the medical community speaks up on this matter and says that using them as political pawns is unacceptable.
Ibrick and PrinceCorwin like this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2013, 08:50 AM   #14 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Well President Obama addressed his proposal last night. He used the constitution and found an example where guns hindered each right.

and here's one part I said "did he really just say that?"

Quote:
Obama added that “that most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were “denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students at Columbine and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate.”
Chicago? Doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws on the books? I wish someone would have called him on that..

Then he goes on to say:
Quote:
“All the families who never imagined they’d lose a loved one to a bullet, those rights are at stake,” he said. “We’re responsible.”
What about those who never imagined they'd lose a loved to a senseless car accident?

That statement angered me, 2 years ago, I lost the love of my life to a senseless car accident, and there was no one trying to pass bills to avenge her death. She was only 20 years old, how is her life less important than those involved in a shooting? Sure it was only one life (Acctually 2 she was with her cousin). But a loss of any life is a tragic event. You should not say anyones death is more important than someone else.

If "we're" responsible for those who have lost a loved one from a bullet, than "we're" responsible for any death in any way. I am not the one who shot up the movie theater, and I am not the one who killed 20 kids, I am not responsible for those deaths, and neither are my firearms that I own. The ones responsible for both are either dead or in custody, blame them not the People of this country, and not the firearms that we use to keep us safe.
Speed Daemon likes this.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2013, 09:03 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

The logic flaw Obama is using is large enough to drive a bus through. He's making a pretty blatant pathos appeal which is sad because the guy is smarter than that. It's a bunch of political posturing more than anything. Personally, I don't consider myself responsible for every gun death. Anyone who does needs to have their head examined.
pbf98 likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:21 PM   #16 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

Here is one of the proposals that Obama is looking at and considering:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

You can view it yourself at:
Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein


According to the wording in there, my first BB gun would be illegal to buy, sell, or transfer, because it holds up to 30 BBs. My 22 rifle I received as a kid for one of my 10th birthday would be illegal because it has a detachable magazine.

And we get to keep all previously owned firearms as long as we registrar all of them? And get photographed, and fingerprinted?? Big brother, is that you?
rootbrain likes this.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2013, 04:29 PM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Set aside all the political implications of the proposal. If this proposal was in effect 6 months ago, how does it prevent what happened at Sandy Hook? I'm not seeing it.
pbf98 likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 17th, 2013, 07:55 PM   #18 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Townsend, DE
Posts: 194
 
Device(s): iPod, Razr Maxx, Nexus 7
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 19
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

I dont think the assault weapons ban has anything to do with the safety of civilians, including school shootings, sniper attacks, etc. These recent events are being used as propaganda in attempt to convince American citizens and government to support the ban. I believe the government, more specifically Obama, wants to disarm American citizens so we cant protect ourselves from the government in the event of economy collapse, or any other major event.

There is no question whether or not Obama wants full power. He seeks monarch power. Trying to use Executive Orders proves it. He tries to link the 2nd amendment to hunting and sports shooting, when the 2nd amendment is for the citizens to protect themselves from corrupt government and policing. The government violates our 1st amendment as well, in multiple ways. This includes using armed police and military personnel to fight against peaceful protesters and activists. The government has staged events during protests where officers would act as riots and destroy cars and break windows. One specific event of this was a police car parked on the street of a protest. No police in it. There were 3 undercover officers acting as rioters in attempt to get the peaceful protesters excited to where they started rioting, and the nearby riot-control would attack them, and use it against protesters. However a true wise-man uncovered what they were doing. The officers were pretended to be arrested.

The government compares semi automatic rifles to military assault rifles, based on their body style and cosmetics. A rifle that looks like a military rifle because of its greyish metalic appearance and AK/AR styled magazine, pistol grip etc, but shoots exactly like a semi-automatic hunting rifle, its considered an assault weapon when its nothing more than a sporting rifle with a military-like theme. There are sporting rifles just like there are sports cars. It comes down to taste. Sports cars are considered cool, so are military rifles. So why not tag military-rifle lookalikes as assault rifles.

Another concern is guns being registered. Registering isnt going to prevent criminals from killing people. And criminals wont even get their guns registered. Citizens registering their guns will just tell the government where to go when its time for a full gun-ban and confiscation.

I honestly dont think a weapons ban would be that bad. Im more concerned about the government having full control over the citizens. We will lose more and more freedom over time. With all the militias that have been created over the last decade, theres no doubt the government wants to disarm them so they can have greater control of our lives and the future without worrying about the citizens revolting.
PrinceCorwin likes this.
javasirc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 06:34 AM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

I guess I'm probably the only person who has no objection to weapons being registered. Our cars are registered. Why not guns? Both can be equally dangerous and a registered gun can be traced more easily by authorities just like a registered car. I don't see the issue with that one at all. The idea that the feds are going to confiscate every single gun in America is completely ludicrous and pretty much everyone agrees on that.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 08:50 AM   #20 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

I guess I just look back at history when they say they want every citizen to register every gun.
First example, look at the Nazi Weapon Act of 1938
Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

Shortly after they started confiscating all firearms, sure they mainly targeted the Jewish citizens.

Not only did Hitler do this, Stalin followed the same premise very closely

There's an old saying that goes something like

those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it

The thing that makes it bad, is because it makes it easier for the government to come along and look at what guns everyone has. Then if they see one gun in particular that they don't like and sees there is a large population of people that own it, they can send authorities to their home and confiscate it.

Why shouldn't the government be able require us to registrar guns but be able to require for cars? Our ownership of guns is a right, driving is a privilege.

Sure I don't see a mass confiscation happening, but why give them what they need to make it easy?

Oh, and if they were to pass a bill saying I have to register all my firearms that meet the listed criteria, I will be bringing in my BB gun to show them how ridiculous it is. I looked at my BB gun the other night, not only does it hold more than 10 rounds, it also has what could be considered a "thumb hole stock"
pbf98 is offline  
Last edited by pbf98; January 18th, 2013 at 08:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 18th, 2013, 09:19 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Godwin's law for the win!
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:01 AM   #22 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

So you're saying we should just disregard what has happened in the past just because of some internet meme?

Don't want me to refrence hitler / nazi's? ok:

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

Two more examples of government confiscating guns.

How will registering guns prevent another mass shooting? Isn't that what they are trying to achieve by attempting to pass more gun control laws? If it has no affect why is it needed? Why should I give into saying I am ok with registering all my firearms? It is my right to keep and bear arms with out the government telling me what i can and can't have or do.

The government belongs in gun control just as much as they belong in controlling the internet.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:06 AM   #23 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Our cars are registered. Why not guns? Both can be equally dangerous and a registered gun can be traced more easily by authorities just like a registered car. I don't see the issue with that one at all. The idea that the feds are going to confiscate every single gun in America is completely ludicrous and pretty much everyone agrees on that.
Because cars aren't guns.

This oft-used fallacy ignores the fact that it's the use of cars on public roads that is being regulated, not the cars themselves. You don't have to register a car that's never driven on public roads, so why should people who keep and use their guns in private places have to register them?

While confiscating everyone's guns might not be imminent, that's hardly the only reason to keep gun ownership private. The first and foremost is because the Constitution says so. Another might be police profiling. How would you like to be shot by a cop who saw that you were a gun owner, and overreacted?

Say it can't happen? Here in Madison a young man was killed by a police officer, and although he was unarmed and too drunk to be a threat to anyone, it was declared a righteous shoot. The cop got away with murder because the wife of a neighbor who was helping the young man home decided to call the cops and say there was a burglary. (There wasn't.) Because she used that magic word, the cop's use of deadly force was unquestioned.

If police agencies get gun ownership records, there's no doubt that they'll use them that way. They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions. In the age of the "Patriot" law it's a cinch that every gun owner would be greeted with lots of drawn weapons for something as innocuous as a traffic stop. That's just asking for trouble!
PrinceCorwin likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:15 AM   #24 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
I guess I just look back at history when they say they want every citizen to register every gun.
First example, look at the Nazi Weapon Act of 1938
Classified guns for "sporting purposes"...
No such law.

The German Weapons Act of 1938 actually loosened gun regulations imposed on Germany by the Allies after WWI. Although it did forbid Jews from manufacture and ownership, everyone else got more liberty.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:37 AM   #25 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
pbf98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: MN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Motorola Triumph
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 103
Thanked 177 Times in 136 Posts
Default

just curious where you found your info, to further my knowledge. I based my findings off a pdf on the University of Chicago Law School, and a few other articles I found. I know not everything on the internet is true, but in my teachings I was taught that if multiple sources state it (ones with out .com domain) it has better chance of being true.

I'm not challenging you, just want to know more haha I don't post anything unless I try debunking it myself first.
pbf98 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:40 AM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Because cars aren't guns.

This oft-used fallacy ignores the fact that it's the use of cars on public roads that is being regulated, not the cars themselves. You don't have to register a car that's never driven on public roads, so why should people who keep and use their guns in private places have to register them?

While confiscating everyone's guns might not be imminent, that's hardly the only reason to keep gun ownership private. The first and foremost is because the Constitution says so. Another might be police profiling. How would you like to be shot by a cop who saw that you were a gun owner, and overreacted?

Say it can't happen? Here in Madison a young man was killed by a police officer, and although he was unarmed and too drunk to be a threat to anyone, it was declared a righteous shoot. The cop got away with murder because the wife of a neighbor who was helping the young man home decided to call the cops and say there was a burglary. (There wasn't.) Because she used that magic word, the cop's use of deadly force was unquestioned.

If police agencies get gun ownership records, there's no doubt that they'll use them that way. They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions. In the age of the "Patriot" law it's a cinch that every gun owner would be greeted with lots of drawn weapons for something as innocuous as a traffic stop. That's just asking for trouble!
It's the same thing at the end of the day. Vehicles are all registered. They are registered for the simple reason that it's easier to track them to their owners if they are lost/stolen or used in a crime somewhere. It's a step that makes perfect sense. There is no national database that keeps records of police contact for everyone in the US.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 10:54 AM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
I guess I'm probably the only person who has no objection to weapons being registered. Our cars are registered. Why not guns? Both can be equally dangerous and a registered gun can be traced more easily by authorities just like a registered car. I don't see the issue with that one at all. The idea that the feds are going to confiscate every single gun in America is completely ludicrous and pretty much everyone agrees on that.
I think I do as well. That said, the constitution does not mention anything about registering guns. All it says is we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:00 AM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's the same thing at the end of the day. Vehicles are all registered. They are registered for the simple reason that it's easier to track them to their owners if they are lost/stolen or used in a crime somewhere. It's a step that makes perfect sense. There is no national database that keeps records of police contact for everyone in the US.
Here in Utah, the NSA is building the largest data center in the U.S. of A. So chances are, there is (or will be) a national database of police contacts. They will (apparently) store "the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other stuff."
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 11:04 AM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
just curious where you found your info, to further my knowledge. I based my findings off a pdf on the University of Chicago Law School, and a few other articles I found. I know not everything on the internet is true, but in my teachings I was taught that if multiple sources state it (ones with out .com domain) it has better chance of being true.

I'm not challenging you, just want to know more haha I don't post anything unless I try debunking it myself first.
The problem is this: so much stuff is copied and pasted from site to site, you can have vast numbers of hits to sites that agree with each other and still be wrong. What you need to do is look at the source data.

I have encountered manufacturer's web sites that cannot get their own corporate history or product lines correct and accurate.
pbf98 and Speed Daemon like this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 12:14 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Here in Utah, the NSA is building the largest data center in the U.S. of A. So chances are, there is (or will be) a national database of police contacts. They will (apparently) store "the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other stuff."
Once again, we have a question of what "could" happen and what "is" happening. At the moment, as I type this, there is no national database of police contacts. It does not exist. I spent 6 years working around a 911 call center. I can say definitively that said database does NOT exist. What "could" happen in the future is another question, but getting our panties in a twist over some purely hypothetical situation is silly IMO.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 18th, 2013, 12:28 PM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

As for the German Weapons Act of 1938, a quick summary of it is easily found on Wikipedia (with primary sources cited as well for those wanting to vet the info)

Quote:
The 1938 German Weapons Act

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
  • Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
  • The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
  • The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
  • The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
  • Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[6]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.
On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation, which only applied to newly conquered Austria and Sudetenland, effectively deprived all Jews living in those locations of the right to possess firearms or other weapons
So, pretty much everyone who was aligned with the government was exempt. The permit restrictions otherwise didn't change at all from the previous law of 10 years earlier. It only applied to handguns and not rifles/shotguns and Jews couldn't own firearms as well. It required a sort of passive registration as vendors had to keep track of who they sold guns to and surrender them to the authorities.


So, some of the previous statements made are true. No background check was required, hunters in particular were completely exempt, and I find no record that guns were classified in any way other than handgun vs long gun. It is true that those under 18 were not allowed to own firearms, but this is actually a loosening up of the previous law that restricted those under the age of 20. So that statement, while true, is a bit misleading.

Edit: Just as an aside, many of those regulations are still in place in Germany today.
pbf98 likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; January 18th, 2013 at 12:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 03:30 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Once again, we have a question of what "could" happen and what "is" happening. At the moment, as I type this, there is no national database of police contacts. It does not exist. I spent 6 years working around a 911 call center. I can say definitively that said database does NOT exist. What "could" happen in the future is another question, but getting our panties in a twist over some purely hypothetical situation is silly IMO.
One could fall back on the favorite of conspiratorial nut-bars everywhere: "They" did not want you to know and so you were not privy to what those call centers are really up to.

Like the employees of Area 51 responsible for taking out the trash with super-secret information.

The truth is way above your pay grade.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (January 18th, 2013)
Old January 18th, 2013, 04:02 PM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
One could fall back on the favorite of conspiratorial nut-bars everywhere: "They" did not want you to know and so you were not privy to what those call centers are really up to.

Like the employees of Area 51 responsible for taking out the trash with super-secret information.

The truth is way above your pay grade.
Well, if I wasn't privy to it, neither were the police officers on the street or any of their or my supervisors either. It certainly could've been useful to help solve some cases.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 07:25 PM   #34 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
just curious where you found your info, to further my knowledge. I based my findings off a pdf on the University of Chicago Law School, and a few other articles I found. I know not everything on the internet is true, but in my teachings I was taught that if multiple sources state it (ones with out .com domain) it has better chance of being true.

I'm not challenging you, just want to know more haha I don't post anything unless I try debunking it myself first.
I appreciate it when someone makes a humble and thoughtful request. Bravo!

The source of much of my information came from many years of schooling, and learning history in the classroom and with homework. Back in the 1960s and '70s, World War II and related history was a big deal. Perhaps this was because many of my classmates' parents or grandparents escaped the Nazis...or didn't.

A lot of my own personal knowledge about the Versailles Treaty and its consequences came out of my own curiosity about Vietnam. (Ho Chi Minh actually went to Versailles, hoping to gain US support for Vietnamese independence.) The treaty that was highly punitive to Germany is something that must be first understood in order to understand how a former German army corporal could end up starting World War II.

I use Wikipedia a lot for double-checking my memory. It's important to understand that I rarely use it as a primary source of information; it's not a truly authoritative source. But it's good for other things, as long as its limitations are understood. There's no substitute for a good education, learned texts, and other documentary sources.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 07:30 PM   #35 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Vehicles are all registered.
Only ones used on public roads. I already covered that.

Quote:
There is no national database that keeps records of police contact for everyone in the US.
Yes there is. It's called the National Crime Information Center (NCIC for short).
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 07:33 PM   #36 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I think I do as well. That said, the constitution does not mention anything about registering guns. All it says is we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
*sigh* Once again, here is the actual text of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 07:38 PM   #37 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
So, pretty much everyone who was aligned with the government was exempt.
The situation was the equivalent of when George W. Bush said "you're either with us or against us". Those who fell into line were rewarded; those who questioned government were reviled.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2013, 09:56 PM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Only ones used on public roads. I already covered that.
Which is de facto every single car in the US. I fail to see what the harm is in registering guns. It harms nothing. It infringes no rights. On the plus side it's a huge help to law enforcement. But that means nothing.

Quote:
Yes there is. It's called the National Crime Information Center (NCIC for short).
The NCIC does not record every citizen interaction with police. Your statement was "They already use the database that keeps records of all police contact for everyone in the US to make other key decisions"

The NCIC is NOT such a database. I know. I interacted with it on a daily basis. When you call 911 it is not recorded in NCIC. When you make a police report it is not recorded in NCIC. When you are pulled over, it is not recorded in NCIC. So, your statement is factually incorrect if you're applying it to the NCIC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
*sigh* Once again, here is the actual text of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And registration of guns infringes on that right how?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 12:53 AM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,299
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
And registration of guns infringes on that right how?
lets get that started with a softball for you........ it violates my right to privacy for one....... I dont want my name, phone number, home address, etc published in the local newspaper and appearing on a public map stating how many and what types of firearms I own for all the world to see

the constitution doesnt grant me the right to own a firearm....... I already have that right....... the constitution restricts the government from violating my rights

and truth be told........ while I would agree common sense dictates we need certain laws limiting things like felons and mentally ill people from owning weapons..... I dont truly believe thats constitutional either...... if you want to take a hardline on it

the constitution doesnt say the right shall not be infringed unless youre a felon or mentally ill......... it says it shall not be infringed..... period

techinally speaking by constitutional law....... there should be nobody prevented for any reason........ convictions/mental status/sex/height/AGE/gay/black/alaskan/etc/etc........ but I digress ..... as common sense does dictate that some groups for the good of humanity need to be prevented
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 08:37 AM   #40 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
lets get that started with a softball for you........ it violates my right to privacy for one....... I dont want my name, phone number, home address, etc published in the local newspaper and appearing on a public map stating how many and what types of firearms I own for all the world to see

the constitution doesnt grant me the right to own a firearm....... I already have that right....... the constitution restricts the government from violating my rights

and truth be told........ while I would agree common sense dictates we need certain laws limiting things like felons and mentally ill people from owning weapons..... I dont truly believe thats constitutional either...... if you want to take a hardline on it

the constitution doesnt say the right shall not be infringed unless youre a felon or mentally ill......... it says it shall not be infringed..... period

techinally speaking by constitutional law....... there should be nobody prevented for any reason........ convictions/mental status/sex/height/AGE/gay/black/alaskan/etc/etc........ but I digress ..... as common sense does dictate that some groups for the good of humanity need to be prevented
First of all, no one said anything about publishing anyone's names in the newspaper. Your car is registered. That's not public information. That information is readily available to law enforcement, but it is not readily available to the guy next door. If you are John Q Public Citizen you have to jump through some hoops to get that info. Even if I do jump through those hoops I don't get a list of every car that is registered to you. I get one tag and who that's registered to. That's it.

So, again, if you have to register a gun when you buy it or if you do the de facto thing where where retailers keep track of who they sell guns to (which they do already in a lot of cases I'm sure) and give those records to the feds, how does this infringe on your right at all? You can still buy just as many guns and the same type of guns as you can right now. If registration went into effect tomorrow, that would not change in the slightest.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:36 AM   #41 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,476
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 479
Thanked 360 Times in 280 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
techinally speaking by constitutional law....... there should be nobody prevented for any reason........ convictions/mental status/sex/height/AGE/gay/black/alaskan/etc/etc........ but I digress ..... as common sense does dictate that some groups for the good of humanity need to be prevented

Some could argue that common sense changes with time, and is an individuals own perspective!

Surely SOME people would see registering guns as common sense, just the same as you see not allowing certain people rights to guns!

As for the term Assualt Weapon, i agree that there is no such weapon/s, but it becoming a reguarly used term, look at most video games, its pretty obviouse that it is high capacity quick reloading GUNS... Language changes, definitions change.... They should, of course define this if using this wording in any currently proposed weapons law!


Personally i dont see any issue with not being able to carry a gun about with me, i know that the majority of people i meet and see in and around the streets, do not have a gun...hell most do not have a weapon at all! This means im not worrying and fearing for the worst constantly, if i did have a gun and some one else started shooting up, what good is me having it, if i got shot first anyway?

Naturally things are different for me as i dont have any "Constitutional Rights" but then i dont fear that my government is going to go crazy and declare martial law etc

We live in different times from the times the constitution was written, the first speed limit was written around the same time, but i bet you dont drive at that same speed!?!?!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:44 AM   #42 (permalink)
Member
 
psionandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 349
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II, Nook HD+
Carrier: 3 UK

Thanks: 95
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
*sigh* Once again, here is the actual text of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Or... to put it another way...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a freestate ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So there is a constructional remit for regulation... but that's the clause everyone sees fit to ignore...
sntaylor likes this.
psionandy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 12:17 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,299
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
First of all, no one said anything about publishing anyone's names in the newspaper. Your car is registered. That's not public information. That information is readily available to law enforcement, but it is not readily available to the guy next door. If you are John Q Public Citizen you have to jump through some hoops to get that info. Even if I do jump through those hoops I don't get a list of every car that is registered to you. I get one tag and who that's registered to. That's it.
tell that to the fine citizens out east whos homes are being broken into now.......... after a newspaper EASILY obtained all of that information and printed it

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
Or... to put it another way...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a freestate ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So there is a constructional remit for regulation... but that's the clause everyone sees fit to ignore...
yes well regulated........... it doesnt say the government has the power to regulate....... self regulated militias are ideal.......... as stated earlier..... the constitution doesnt give me my right to bear arms........... it tells the govt they have NO power whatsoever to stop me
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 12:30 PM   #44 (permalink)
Member
 
psionandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: liverpool
Posts: 349
 
Device(s): Galaxy Note II, Nook HD+
Carrier: 3 UK

Thanks: 95
Thanked 67 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post


yes well regulated........... it doesnt say the government has the power to regulate....... self regulated militias are ideal.......... as stated earlier..... the constitution doesnt give me my right to bear arms........... it tells the govt they have NO power whatsoever to stop me
it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.


Feel free to ignore the first half if you like (you certainly won't be the only one), but if you do you can't really use the second as a justification for you having the right to bear arms. (you are of course free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...)
psionandy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 12:57 PM   #45 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
tell that to the fine citizens out east whos homes are being broken into now.......... after a newspaper EASILY obtained all of that information and printed it
But owning a gun is supposed to deter burglars. I don't understand.
sntaylor likes this.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
sntaylor (January 19th, 2013)
Old January 19th, 2013, 08:03 PM   #46 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
But owning a gun is supposed to deter burglars. I don't understand.
Believe it or not people do leave their homes at times.
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2013, 11:33 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,299
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psionandy View Post
it says that as as a regulated militia is needed then the right to bear arms isn't to be infringed....
skipping over the fact that there aren't any militias in the envisioned sense .. the second half of the clause is dependent on the first half, ie regulation is required. And it doesn't rule out who is /isn't responsible to do it, or the level at which it should be set.


Feel free to ignore the first half if you like (you certainly won't be the only one), but if you do you can't really use the second as a justification for you having the right to bear arms. (you are of course free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...)
you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...
psionandy and Ibrick like this.
copestag is offline  
Last edited by copestag; January 19th, 2013 at 11:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013, 12:37 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 970 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
Believe it or not people do leave their homes at times.
Shouldn't matter. The argument has been made that if everyone had a gun crime would go down because burglars will avoid homes where they know someone has a gun. So, publishing the fact that you have a gun would be a good thing because burglars would avoid your home and knock over your neighbors house next door as they know that guy doesn't have a gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by copestag View Post
you are correct..... it doesnt rule out who is/isnt responsible for regulating it........ but more importantly it doesnt rule the US govt in....... once again..... the constitution doesnt give me the right to bear arms....... it restricts the government from infringing on that right....... as for who is ruled out..... I point you once again to who is NOT ruled in

Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

no power of regulating guns was delegated to the United States

and to help you out a little bit...... there arent 2 halves to that sentence...... there are 4 parts (you'll notice the commas)........ and it seems you've completely left out the 2nd part because it specifically defeats your argument

Article 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please notice the last word of the second part......its an important one... States........ in every portion of the constitution where power was delegated to the entirety of the US govt the words United States appear....... in every portion where powers were specifically deferred to the state governments the word States appears......

here in this section youll notice the constitution specifically says being necessary to the security of a free State....... NOT the United States....... the powers to regulate were not delegated to the US govt because thats exactly the reason the amendment exists.... to prevent the US govt from taking away gun rights...... and the militias were never intended for national defense... they were intended if the need arose to prevent the govt from taking away rights...... the states have the power to regulate militias and arms as they see fit...... but the United States shall not infringe

Feel free to use any other arguments you like, be they philosophical, political, traditional etc...
I'll use a legal argument. The federal government does have the right to regulate guns. Not only are there currently existing federal laws regulating guns, but the ATF exists to enforce those laws. So, yes, the feds have the legal right to regulate firearms. The prohibition on felons owning firearms is a federal law (though some states have laws as well). The prohibition on having firearms on your person or in your carry on bag on an airplane is a federal one as well. So, the argument that the feds don't have the legal right to regulate firearms is bogus. The precedent has been set for hundreds of years. Individual laws may or may not be constitutional, but the feds have every right to pass and enforce them.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013, 02:11 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ibrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 976
 
Device(s): Droid DNA, Galaxy Nexus, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 243
Thanked 207 Times in 165 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Shouldn't matter. The argument has been made that if everyone had a gun crime would go down because burglars will avoid homes where they know someone has a gun. So, publishing the fact that you have a gun would be a good thing because burglars would avoid your home and knock over your neighbors house next door as they know that guy doesn't have a gun.
Depending on what that individual was planning on doing. If they chose to break into a home knowing full well the owner was home and owned a firearm. They're either extremely brazen, stupid, or plan on the chance they may need to use a firearm of their own.

If they know the owner isn't home and know a gun/guns are inside that most definitely makes them a target for those looking to obtain a firearm illegally. This happened in my own neighborhood a few years back actually.
Ibrick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old January 20th, 2013, 06:21 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,299
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 236 Times in 186 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibrick View Post
Depending on what that individual was planning on doing. If they chose to break into a home knowing full well the owner was home and owned a firearm. They're either extremely brazen, stupid, or plan on the chance they may need to use a firearm of their own.

If they know the owner isn't home and know a gun/guns are inside that most definitely makes them a target for those looking to obtain a firearm illegally. This happened in my own neighborhood a few years back actually.
exactly...... gun registration leads to public knowledge of where guns are...... leads to more illegal guns on the streets

if I didnt know any better I would say thats what theyre hoping for......... they want crime with illegal guns to increase........ at least thats what their efforts will accomplish
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
constitution, guns, laws, politics, second amendment


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.