it's the "don't ask, don't tell" of the gun world; don't tell me your a felon, and I won't tell anyone you bought a gun here

many people support lots of things. mandating what I do and don't do with my personal property will never be one of them.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 10 : 35 : 35-----
you've never been to a gun show, have you? non dealers cannot setup a stand or table, at least none of the gun shows I've ever worked at have let them. private citizens who want to sell a private gun have always had to carry it on their person and have some sort of sign indicating what they want to sell. All the TX gunshows I've been to require the person to have an FFL if they want to set up a table or booth. As to selling to a felon, it's not my responsibility to ensure that the person has the right to own a gun. I am not responsible for someone breaking the law, nor should I be required to.

there are 100's of laws mandating what you do or don't do with your personal property. what are you talking about?


thus......wait for it......a LOOPHOLE

if the government has a policy that requires background checks on gun purchases through a dealer, but you can sell it to someone without a background check as long as it's from your home or out the trunk of your car, that's a loophole

I understand that gun sellers fear the idea of "the person I sell this gun to may go shoot up a shopping mall, and I'll end up an accessory to the crime." I think that would be avoided if all the checks and balances are in place. If you ahve to run a background check on the guy you're selling to, you wouldn't have sold him the gun in the first place, right? If I sell my car to someone and then they go run over a group of school children, am I an accessory to that crime?

and I ignore every single unconstitutional one of them.




what part of I'M NOT A DEALER are you having a problem comprehending? The law is about buying from dealers, not private individuals, thus NO LOOPHOLE!!!!


No, if someone you sold your car to runs over a entire playground of schoolchildren, you are not an accessory UNLESS you KNEW he/she intended to do just that. If your buyer says nothing other than 'i want to buy your car', you are not an accessory. Now WHY would you need to run a background check on someone buying your car? no reason whatsoever, and the same with a gun. It is not a requirement of me to automatically assume that anyone wanting to buy a gun from me intends on using it for a crime. It is also unconstitutional to run me up the hangmans noose because someone that bought a gun from me committed a crime later.

dk...I recall seeing a stat that more than 30 states do not limit gun show displays and sales to FFL registered dealers. I know for a fact that unlicensed dealers display and sell at gun shows in Virginia.

I will have to find the source (I think it was the National Conference of State Legislatures)

By any reasonable standard, that is a loophole.

accepting that it's true, that a private individual can indeed 'rent' space at a gun show to sell a collection of private firearms, that would then make him a dealer in your eyes?

and i'd refrain from using the term 'reasonable'. It's highly debatable.

strange to see this thread still twitching.

if you look at the webpage slims links above, you'll notice that the paragraph which has prompted the new round of snippy "i will not comply" statements is way down near the bottom of a very long list of statements concerning initiatives directed toward american cities. like way way way down on the list. and if you actually read through the list, you'll see that there are a number of quite complex initiatives aimed at problems FAR greater than whether you do or do not have to register your guns or have to use trigger locks or any of that.

personally, i have no problem with there being a distinction between urban and rural spaces in terms of gun regulation---i've lived far too long in cities to find any of the various modes of posturing about "soft society" (phrases redolent of those nice german lads with brown shirt predelictions during the 20s and most of their subsequent imitators) or "self-defense" to mean anything beyond more bullets flying around in already densely populated areas. so i think it entirely ok for gun controls to be one way inside chicago, say, and other ways outside---and i don't see why there'd be a problem with that for the gun people if the regulations were locally enacted.

again, in the confirmation hearings for obama's attorney general nominee, it was made quite explicit that the support indicated in the decontextualized paragraph above is not being translated into any action any time soon by the administration. i wouldn't expect to see anything until a second term, if there is one...

so i would consider untwisting your knickers, comrades.
look around at the problems facing the administration, facing all of us....you are way way way down on the list.
stop being so narcissistic.

your argument lacks flavor, considering that in order to make it you have to color it with visions of nazism. But then again, maybe that's the only way you can put an antigun stance in a malcontextualized light.

ETA:

why should localities be given authority to determine what parts of the constitution are stronger than others because of population density?

As for being 'way down on the list', doesn't matter to me. The mere presence of it is enough for me to say 'no way and no thanks.

and the 'i will not comply' statement is nowhere near snippy, but deadly matter of fact. I will not comply and they will have to use deadly force to attempt to make me. My line in the sand has been drawn.

And some of us have to sell our guns to pay the bills these days.

...

Guns don't keep the lights and the heat on, bro.

i was referring to the litany earlier on this page of complaints about the civilian population "lacking spine" or having "gone soft"--see for yourself--it's right there. as for the lineage of these arguments, that's also a matter of record. it is of no concern to me whether you like it or not.

lacking spine? gone soft? yeah, i'd have to agree that most have. We've gone from a nation of warriors to a nation of nanny staters demanding someone else protect us from evil, mainly because of population density in localized areas. Yes, big city dwellers are mostly to blame.

nice dk--that's like my saying that everyone who lives in a rural space is stupid. both are ridiculous statements, both are patently false.

and this is a waste of time.

dk and crompin:

Just so I understand...

In those 30+ states where anyone, not just FFL registered dealers, can display and sell weapons at gun shows, including Crompsin selling a handgun from his private collection at a gun show in Virginia if he chooses, in order to pay bills....the buyer, who may or may not be a felon, should not be subject to a background check?

And that is not a loophole?
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 04 : 06-----
Evidently, federalism and states rights are at the foundation of beliefs for conservatives and libertarians except in the case of state or local actions that may limit gun ownership within the framework of the 2nd amendment.

Please don't associate me with DK.

I have a hobby. He has an obsession.

That is correct. The sole power of congress to regulate firearms resides in the judicially gifted commerce clause loophole. The power to regulate interstate commerce, which now includes intrastate commerce as well, but precludes the private possession of firearms (U.S. v. Lopez). Since congress already regulates the interstate sale of firearms through FFLs, it is not a power of congress to further regulate the private sale and possession of firearms, most notable in their limitation to require background checks or form 4473s for state to state long gun sales and the already assumed power of requiring NICS and 4473s for state to state handgun sales, not same state handgun sales between private individuals. That is not a loophole. It is a limitation on the power of congress.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 12 : 47-----
ANY aspect of the US constitution, not just the 2nd.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 13 : 59-----
The key difference between your statement and mine is you included everyone and I said most.

Cromp....you offered to educate us on "gun show loopholes"
So please educate me how it is not a loophole if you were to display and sell a gun from your private collection at a gun show in Virginia w/o a requirement of a background check of the buyer who might be a felon.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 12 : 21 : 34-----

ahhh...dk educated me....the dreaded commerce clause

Uh, what?

Wrong, I was referring to Derwood's comment about the "gun show loophole." I wanted him to educate the thread.

My mistake and I take back any wrongful associations.

But if you sell a gun from your private collection at a VA gun show, please try to make sure its not to a felon!

its that and the law is very specific about licensed dealers, not private individuals selling parts of their personal collection. That was a hotly debated part of the bill when it was crafted and voted on.

Thanks for the tip.

Hey, when you drive your car... please try to avoid hitting small children.

...

I'm an educated and responsible firearm owner. Don't patronize me with your "wisdom." Have you ever purchased or sold a firearm? It's a lot of paperwork and waiting. The government has a good program in place already. Gun show loopholes? You can't stop the illegal from being illegal without screwing everyone else.

Just because DC_Dux puts a toddler up on the hood of his Buick doing 86 in a 25 doesn't mean everybody with a car is a badguy.

Is there a lot of paper work and waiting for you to sell a gun from your private collection at a gun show...to anyone who walks up to your display table?

strictly by the letter of the law (here in TX) there is no paperwork required if I wanted to sell my revolver to my neighbor or some stranger from the other side of town, no matter where i'm at. Personally, I have a bill of sale in two copies that states i'm selling said gun, serial # to whoever is buying for said amount. I put in a disclaimer paragraph that the buyer signs stating he/she is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. I do this for my protection in the event he/she really is not and the authorities decide to have a chat with me.

is that bill of sale that you've drawn up legally binding? i know nothing about contractual law

it protects both the buyer and myself. I can't later claim it was stolen, because he/she has a signed copy with my name on it, and it can't later be used in a crime traceable to me because I have a signed bill of sale indicating transfer. It never gets filed with any government agency at any time. just like any standard mutually agreed upon contract.

For the purposes of law enforcement, it functions just like a receipt.

The only time 'contracts' will come in to play is if the buyer disputes something with the seller.

A) You buy a handgun from a licensed dealer and you are subject to a background check.

B) A complete stranger buys that handgun from you at your table at a gun show in 30+ states and he is not.

A+B = Loophole

not a loophole, at all. read the law please.

I would take this to mean that you believe ALL firearm transfers, commercial or private, should be NICS checked. How many other items of private property should be subject to federal regulation? Anything that can be used as a weapon?

I read the law (but not recently) and the concept of "private collection" is not clearly defined...so there is your loophole...allowing you to sell virtually any weapon w/o you being required to be a licensed dealer.

And NO, I dont believe ALL firearms transfers should be NICS checked. You can sell what you want out of your own home. I just dont believe you should be able to pose as a "collector" at a gun show in order to sell your old handguns.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 06 : 32 : 17-----
Like rb, I am now officially bored with this discussion.

Obama and the Democrats in Congress know how to count votes.

And they know, particularly with so many new Democrats being from the South and West, that any new federal gun control legislation would be DOA, particularly in the Senate, and not worth wasting a valuable chip.

It aint gonna happen.....period...end of discussion.

a 'private collection' is firearms owned by a private individual NOT in the business of selling firearms. That does not make a loophole. You really should read the GCA of 68 and then the later amendments made during the clinton anti-gun years to see how FFL laws were remade in order to stop what you're referring to as a loophole. It was actually quite effective. I repeat, there is no loophole.

if you're bothered by private sales at gun shows, then you're stuck with defining what a private collection is and isn't. Do we say 3 firearms, 5 firearms, or 8 firearms is just a private collection and anything over that constitutes dealer status? In order to own more than 8 firearms you must obtain and FFL license?

or do you want to federalize all state run gun shows to stipulate that ONLY licensed FFL dealers can sell at them? All that would do is prompt more parking lot sales.

Or do you want to redefine FFL dealers as anyone who sells a firearm outside of their personal residence? If that's the case, then you need to rewrite entire sections of the GCA68.

I don't want criminals to easily get around background checks in 30+ states in the country. whatever it takes to do THAT please

keep them in prison. If they can't be trusted with a weapon, why should they be trusted without a custodian?

what if this is their first crime?

no no, you're right, life sentences for all criminals is far more practical

once again, if they can't be trusted with a weapon (because even if you banned guns entirely, weapons would still be available), they shouldn't be out of prison. Therefore, it only seems plain and obvious that ONLY violent prone criminals should have life sentences and all other NON-VIOLENT criminals can have their rights restored upon getting out of jail.

Re: Gun Show Loopholes.

If you are a DEALER, then you MUST do a background check before selling a firearm. Period.

If you are a private firearm owner who wants to sell a weapon (but is not doing so on a regular basis or for profit) then you sometimes do not, depending on the state. It makes no difference whether the transaction takes place in a house, a parking lot, or a gun show. It is a private person to person transaction. So while you may be able to call this a.... Loophole, it is not a Gun Show Loophole which according to the brady bunch allows felons to purchase weapons willy nilly.

As a private citizen you are not allowed to sell a weapon to anyone you suspect or know to be an unlawful buyer, but the onus is really on the person purchasing the weapon.

If you closed the "gun show loophole" and simply prevented private sales at gun shows you would only serve to inconvenience those looking for a good way to sell their private firearms and criminals would just buy their illegal guns...illegally or out of the shotgun news from another private citizen who is not at a gun show.

Gun Shows provide private citizens with a good way to sell specialty and collectors pieces. You put a sign down the barrel and walk around until you bump into another collector looking for what you have.



And Roachboy: Sure, the comment I quoted was towards the bottom of the page, but it was sorted not by precedence but by category. Also, since this is a thread concerning what will happen regarding firearms during Obama's administration, it would be inappropriate to discuss some of the other items he mentioned which I take equal offense to.


The child locks law does sound perfectly reasonable. I would even support a law requiring a lock to be sold with every firearm (many states already have this). It is a good, simple way to provide the OPTION of locking up your firearm if/when you have children in the house. However, nearly every proposed law focuses instead on rendering the weapon itself somehow unusable to children which in turn usually makes it very difficult for the homeowner to use also. They are typically aimed at reducing gun sales more than actually helping children.

Repealing the Tiarht Amendment would impose a defacto gun-registry in the USA. Something that has been widely fought against as firearms registration often leads to confiscation. It wouldn't really help solve crimes because if the police have the 'murder weapon' in their possession, they will be granted access to the information for that particular weapon and thus can track down the owner. If they don't have the weapon then they wouldn't know where to start anyways. It is feared that free access to such information will allow someone who falls under any suspicion to be instantly categorized as the next Ted Kaczynski simply because they own several firearms.

slims--i suppose in the end that time will tell. like i said, i watched the attorney general confirmation hearings, as i have been watching some of the others in order to get a sense what the new administration is likely to do--and i saw no reason to doubt his repeated statements that this is not on the administration's radar, that he cannot imagine it being on their radar. maybe you have information i don't, but i doubt it.

but i'd say that given the magnitude of damage left behind after 8 years of focused conservative incompetence and 30 years of neoliberalism, given the extent to which it is clear that the obama administration is a wholesale repudiation of that 30 years--and so given the extent to which they have to confront very complicated questions very quickly and assemble teams capable to implementing a very different type of policy orientation--and so a different kind of state---not the neoliberal state--but something else---i would expect this question to be very very far down on the agenda.

but it's also possible that a case will wend it's way through the court system that could change things.

barring that, i don't see anything really happening on this any time soon.

i don't know whether this is of any interest, but the fact is that this issue doesn't move me. i grew up with guns around, but i never took an interest in them. i was more taken with bow shooting at targets. hunting never really appealed to me. when i went hunting, i liked tracking but found that guns were heavy and got in the way and i never had any intention of shooting them at anything anyway. i preferred hiking. so i don't really have an iron in the fire.

but i have lived most of my adult life in cities, as i've said before in these debates.

so i have no particular problem with folk having guns, hunting or whatever in areas that are not densely populated--but i can't for the life of me figure out why there's an assumption that guns mean the same thing in a city. again, population density--it's as simple as that.

so i see gun regulation as a pragmatic matter perhaps best resolved at the local level--as i've said before, i see no reason why there should not be very different regulations in urban and other environments. to me, it's just common sense.

i've participated a little in this thread because i wanted to understand why the above was apparently such a problem for other folk. and there's a range of positions, some which makes sense to me, some which don't at all.

it's strange how polarized these things get. it doesn't seem necessary. but there we are.

safe storage laws only create defenseless victims, case in point the carpenter family in merced california.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

jeebus, isn't this thread dead yet?

roachboy, my morbid curiosity requires me to ask just how do you think gun laws should be different in densely populated areas, other than what they are right now in say, chicago, nyc, los angeles, newark nj and what effect would they have if the ones that are so onerous now are not working.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 08 : 44 : 56-----
no, and why should it be? so far it still seems like a civil debate. should it die?

dksuddeth: I was very careful to say that locks should be sold with firearms, not that their use should be mandatory.

I keep a pistol on the nightstand, but I don't see how you can claim safe storage laws ONLY create defenseless victims. Be realistic, if all firearms were stored in gun safes, it would be far more difficult for children to hurt themselves. It is and should be an individual decision based on risk/lifestyle, but making inflated claims won't help anything. I remember all the trouble I got into with firearms as a child, and it is only because some of my friends were 'trusted' to not screw around with guns. It is a miracle we were never arrested, or that we didn't shoot someone and end up in jail.

If you have children and leave firearms out, eventually they WILL play with them when you are not around. If you taught them safe weapons handling they wont' shoot each other, but there is a lot a 13 year old boy doesn't know yet.

It is, however an issue I think should be left to personal responsibility.

On an unrelated note. The reposting of that 'AWB' thing on the whitehouse website has me worried. Is that a pander to the base, or should I go ahead and purchase my LWRC M6A2 on credit?

Sigh.

Me too. I've got enough for a M107 knock-off. Hell, might be a good investment.
-----Added 21/1/2009 at 09 : 34 : 06-----
This is the issue that the anti-gunners don't want to confront. Responsibility means relying on an individual's judgment and action. You can't trust that. Better pass a law to control everybody. Only way to be sure. Safety is better than responsibility.

if all gun owners were responsible, the law wouldn't be necessary. but since some parents aren't responsible enough to keep their guns out of the hands of their children, measures must be made to protect the children. yes, the idiots "ruin" it for the good guys.

So rather than pass laws that limit everyone why don't we work together towards laws that prosecute idiot irresponsible parents? Or just idiot irresponsible people that leave a gun lying around within a childs reach?

I personally think that if you intentionally cause harm do something intentionally irresponsible that causes harm to your child you should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death. I think if this was public policy suddenly we would have the best parents in the world. But this is only my opinion. So as an example of this let's say I am a parent that leaves a gun out where my child can access it and they get it out while I'm away and accidentally shoot themselves or another child. I know I will be tried and should I be convicted then I know what my sentence will be. How many guns do you think will be left unattended in a place where small children could access them? Absolutely none.

I guess that should mean that because a few people use kitchen knives to kill people, we should outlaw or license kitchen knives......wait, i think somewhere they are trying that. :orly:

or maybe because we've got a few really bad cops that have gone and killed civilians, we should remove all guns from cops?

you don't see how patently absurd it is to punish a whole group of people for the unlawful/irresponsible acts of a few?

Okay, we're not talking about kitchen knives or bad cops. Can we stay focused here?

Can child safety measures on guns be compared to seat-belt legislation? Making it a law that people must use safety measures that will likely prevent accidental deaths?

One more reason to believe that gun control, particularly an AWB, has no chance of passage in the 111th Congress (for those who still think it is on the Democrats agenda):

NY governor Patterson is expected to appoint Congresswoman Kirsten Gillebrand to Hillary Clinton's seat. Gillebrand is a gun-toting upstate NY centrist/right centrist Democrat with a 100% rating by the NRA.

Count one less vote for an AWB on the Democratic aisle in the Senate, effectively killing it for certain, if there ever was any doubt.
-----Added 22/1/2009 at 11 : 49 : 34-----
I just heard her described as a Democratic answer to Sarah Palin.....young mother, hunter, relatively new and unknown in national politics, fiscal conservative....but with a brain!

Aw man please give it a rest. The lady was crucified in the press because she was perceived as a serious threat to the Senator from Illinois. Your side won, whether it was fair and square is always open to debate, nevertheless let's move on and see what we collectively can do rather than 4 more years like the last 20 or so.

This from a guy who mockingly likes to refer to B Hussein Obama as the savior?

But putting that aside, as well as the absurdity of whether the "fairness" of Obama's overwhelming electoral victory "will always be open to debate"....the larger point is that Gilllibrand is not a typical eastern liberal in the manner that the right wing media like to portray all Democrats.

Like many of the 50+ Democratic House members elected in the last four years from Republican districts, these folks are a large part of the new face and growing tent of the Democratic party for whom gun control is not an issue.

And she can probably see Canada from her window!
-----Added 23/1/2009 at 08 : 33 : 39-----
Who is Kirsten Gillibrand
The Blue Dog Coalition is not to be ignored in the Democratic Party and Obama/Pelosi et al know it as well as anyone.

her appointment seriously lowered my concern about any gun laws for the next two years.

Anyone ever thought about a march on Washington with empty holsters, if another AWB bill gets to the floor of the legislation?

No they can't. Seat belts don't inhibit the owners ability to drive. Forcing someone to install an integral lock on a weapon does. I don't have children and have no need to secure all my weapons. If I had them, I would choose what level of security is appropriate for my family and I. I would weigh the odds of a home invasion where I live against the risk to my children if they find a weapon and act appropriately.

Oh, and DKsuddeth, there is absolutely no way on this earth I would walk around DC with an empty holster. It just isn't going to happen. I have never understood how that sort of protest does anything other than make the protesters look like a bunch of idiots.

If you want to change a law then lobby, it is the only really effective way in most circumstances.

Empty holsters = empty heads.

How about a protest where we burn holsters? Or maybe our concealed carry licenses?

And the pen is mightier than the gun. :)

But the point is that the locks would possibly prevent thousands of accidents.

Don't you have to think of resale?

Children can be unpredictable. That's why accidents happen.

Many states already mandate a gun lock must be sold with every gun. Many gun manufacturers (S&W, Taurus, Remington) have integral locks inside them.

You can't force people to use locks just like you can't force people to use seat belts. You can provide them the locks and keys (even by law) and create penalties for not using them. And that's all.

...

Baraka...

There are no "accidents" with guns, only operator negligence or equipment malfunction.

I don't need a lock to make a firearm safe. I can disassemble it or put it in my safe.

Children kill themselves every day with things you can't ban or regulate.

Cruel or not, I'd rather hand out Darwin Awards than more feel-good-do-nothing legislation.

...

There needs to be more firearm education and less firearm legislation.

I'm all for mandatory training. I'm against silly placebo laws.

It might not be a loophole currently, but I see this as something this administration might look into changing.

I could see them making the seller do a background check on the person buying the gun in order to transfer it. It probably wouldn't be that hard to setup the ATF or FBI to handle this type of program for non gun dealers. Maybe they would just have to go to a licensed gun dealer to get a certificate stating that they are able to buy a gun and the seller has to do the same thing so they know that the other person is able to buy a gun.

How about a barcode tattoo?

I think the laws we have now are great. Let's get to enforcing them, m'kay.

I would agree, which is why i'm not the one that suggested it.
-----Added 23/1/2009 at 10 : 41 : 49-----
all this would amount to is full scale registration which could/would lead to full scale confiscation. just like canadas firearm registry, just like californias Assault weapons registration, too many people would not comply. Once it was determined that only a small amount of people would actually comply, how is it going to be enforced?

explain why registration = confiscation please

WOLVERINES!

Sorry, that pops out every time somebody says "confiscation."

Pfft.

...

Only issue with full registration is that it makes it easy for The Man to inventory who has what and how much.

Not like that don't do that with every other aspect of our lives. I mean, hell... the DoD has my frickin' DNA.

without going in to all the same historical essay that i've done in the past, registration=confiscation is not only easy to follow, we have actual occurrences of it right here in this 'never happen here' country.

1) chicagos handgun ban. When first implemented, it grandfathered in all handguns registered before a certain date. This led to the creation of CAGE (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) units who then served warrants and raided homes of people who's registration expired. They also managed to get access to firearm purchase records if the buyer listed a chicago address. Any new gun purchase from someone with a chicago address received a surprise visit from these CAGE units looking for the gun.

2) Californias AWB. Before the ban, there was proposed registration. Lots of people registered the listed weapons if they owned any. they were told at that time that these weapons were not going to be banned, but the new law aimed at crime prevention demanded that all the weapons indicated needed to be registered ever so often. Then the roberti-roos AWB was implemented. Those who were foolish enough to actually register a weapon listed on that ban received notice to turn them over to police. Those that didn't turn them over received a nice little police raid looking for registered weapon.

If you choose to stick your head in the sand and trumpet that it would never happen here, thats fine. I know I will never comply with registration. I know that tens of thousands never will also.

Ok, so registration = confiscation where "registration" = "ban"?

It's a very simple 3 step process to follow. why are you asking a question about it?

first, governments mandate registration

second, governments mandate bans on specific weapons

third, government confiscate

how hard was that to follow?

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

Things like mandatory waiting periods, the registration of fire arms and owners, etc seem perfectly reasonable as crime prevention measures, and specifically doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms. (You could make some privacy arguments here, and I'd be open to listening to them).

Bans on specific weapons also seem reasonable, up to a point. To take an extreme example, no sane person would extend the right to bear arms to nuclear weapons. So there's a limit somewhere. I haven't researched the question much, but from what little I know offhand, I think the current limits are about right, but could maybe be cleaned up and simplified a bit. IIRC, most gun violence is from hand guns anyway, and we aren't going to ban those anytime soon.

How exactly would government confiscation of handguns work in this country? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, ever - eternal vigilance is necessary for a democratic government, and all that. But if it gets to the point where the gubmint comes for our guns, I think we're pretty deep in the shit already. Let's say Osama ordered the army/police to go round up the guns tomorrow. Imagine how well that would work out. You send the police door to door, to houses of people they *know* are armed...you get the idea.

So, like a lot of other advocacy/rights groups, the NRA + co do a lot of important work, but also engage in a lot of fear mongering, and storm-in-a-teakettle type activities.

So your problem isn't that registration is the problem; it's bans.

It wasn't hard to follow; I merely wanted you to confirm your bias.

if it actually occurs, it's hardly a fallacy. By continuing to advocate the 'fallacy' as if it never happens is delusional at best.

they seem reasonable to you, does that mean that only you get to decide whats reasonable? reasonable is a very subjective term. I suspect that you and I will never come to terms on the same definition of reasonable, so eventually somewhere along the lines someone is going to feel trod upon.

careful. I talked about this very thing and became considered an extremist. next thing you know, you'll be talking about killing police officers.....very bad. :oogle:
-----Added 24/1/2009 at 12 : 08 : 10-----
so registration = confiscation is my bias talking? history doesn't mean jack to you, does it?

Yes, when it's presented with a bias. Registration does not necessarily equal confiscation; not even in the examples you provided yourself.

Let's not jump to conclusions, now. That could lead you to reveal even more bias.

that's a bad equation

registration =/= confiscation

registration + ban = confiscation

let's at least get the math right

and again, your problem is with the ban, not the registration (more specifically, the idea that registration would force you to actually give up your now illegal firearm rather than be able to keep it illegally)

huh. in france, you have to register with the prefect of police and give your address.
this comes out of the way police activity developed across the 18th century.
and while it feels a little strange to do that because coming from the states you're not used to it....there's been no connection between registering and actions geared around expelling people. if the assumption that gun registration would lead to a ban and confiscation were not an example of a slippery slope fallacy, you'd expect to have seen one lead to another empirically. it hasn't.

the only exception to this was during world war 2---but that was an exception. unless you think, somehow, that all states indulge genocide, and uses the same bureaucratic mechanisms to do it (which is entirely false--there have been lots of routes to genocide), it's an example of a logical fallacy.

jeebus christ, the last 3 posts are like a version of orwells 1984. now I'm done with the conversation. it's pointless when you refuse to accept the reality of your surroundings.

I fail to see how registration will prevent crime. People that cause crimes with firearms aren't going to register them and the vast majority of people that will register theirs to remain legal won't be using them in a crime so what's the point again? Given this reality it's easy to assume that any registration will precede confiscation.

Now you're overreacting.

This hasn't happened. What's happened is that you've failed to rationalize "our surroundings" (i.e. what you are getting at with registration). We can't read your mind. You've left many things open to interpretation and we called you out on it.
-----Added 24/1/2009 at 02 : 51 : 19-----

Registration is not an all-on-one solution. Gun smuggling, etc. is another issue.

no, the reality you think you live in isn't reality. seriously, I don't know where you live, but it's like 1% similar to the America I've lived in for 34 years

So remind me again what will be accomplished by gun registration?

I'll point out from the onset that one of the problems is that there hasn't been any successful implementation of a gun registry that I know of. roachboy mentioned France, but I can't speak to that because I don't know much about it, so I will leave that to him. Some of the challenges of a gun registry are obvious enough: escalating cost and non-compliance are two that come to mind. But to suggest these are deal-breakers when it comes to a registry doesn't make a lot of sense, as it would suggest giving up on other projects that have similar problems, rather than facing them and overcoming them as challenges.

As far as what a gun registry aims to accomplish, there are a few things. What it isn't meant for (in cases of which I'm familiar) is to ban and confiscate arms. I've noted in this thread more than once that in the U.S., government is empowered by a mandatory freedom of the people, which includes the right to owning guns, so let's set that aside (i.e. the government does not want to take all the guns away).

I will only put out a few things a gun registry is used for in summary, as I don't have a lot of time at the moment:

• To help distinguish between guns which are legal and guns which aren't (i.e. guns that are legally registered and guns that are smuggled).
• To encourage registered gun owners to better secure their guns, which will help prevent gun theft and even accidents in the home.
• To discourage casual gun ownership in those who don't have the same level of responsibility as those who understand the workings and the dangers of guns, thus reducing instances of unwanted or unnecessary guns.

These are merely some summarized ideas. As I've suggested, this shouldn't be a be-all-and-end-all of gun ownership. It should be regarded as a means to increase public safety.

I don't agree with banning weapons that have been registered. But this is where I think the NRA needs to come in. The government should enforce the "well-regulated militia" part and make sure that people are screened before being able to purchase guns, but use the NRA as a middleman. Sure, there are plenty of black-market people out there who won't play by the rules, but it's in the NRA/gun-owner's best interest that those numbers are controlled. If it doesn't happen, bans on certain guns being produced could happen or people would need to register with the state national guard instead of the third-party NRA.

I wonder how many people have been denied from buying a gun through the current background check program if they know that they can buy it used without going through it

baraka--i was using the example of registering people, which is the practice in france, in order to point out that there is no necessary connection along the lines that dk was arguing. gun control is draconian in france, but i wasn't talking about that--i don't know the details as i've never even imagined bringing a gun there.

The reality is that the last time Congress even raised the issue of confiscation (during a "state of emergency"), Obama voted against it.
-----Added 24/1/2009 at 07 : 19 : 14-----
Social Security

The military usually leads the way on social programs (racial integration, seeing how humans can survive on salted meat from 4 years ago, etc). To anybody who thinks they aren't a number, try opening a bank account or buying a car from a dealership. We are borg... even if we don't want to be.

...

All your base? They has it.

Yep....Social Security is a bitch.

Who wants to keep millions of senior out of poverty...or through medicare, provide seniors with a better quality of life.

When the gun registration = confiscation argument is made, one comes across as either paranoid or a fear monger.

There are 240+ million firearms in the US and they arent being confiscated and unless/until there is a complete breakdown of the system of 200+ year old checks and balances, it aint gonna happen.

Get over it!

Hopefully you're right. In New York, they first mandated registration of all 'assault-type' firearms. They later banned them and would show up at peoples houses to take those guns away. Owners who had registered guns had to either give them up, or show proof of sale.

really? one of the reasons I never registered my assault rifles in CA was that very reason. My other friends who did, had to turn them in or show proof of sale.

There's no paranoia there, I was able to give my friend my weapons, and he still has them to this day. Whereas those that registered them, they had to hand them over.

As far as Social Security is concerned, Cromp isn't talking about benefits, he's talking about IDENTIFICATION. One cannot do much business without an SSI# here in the US.

I can't tell you how many times I have to fight with people who WANT or DEMAND my SSI# as part of the form I need to fill out for my dr, insurance, college course, schools, cellphone (including disposable/prepaid AT&T), the list is growing EVERY DAY.

There is absolutely paranoia here to suggest that a state registration or ban of one type of weapon will lead to a federal program of confiscating and/or banning all firearms.

It ignores all political reality:

the Heller decision

the fact that the last attempt at an AWB in Congress two years ago had only 15-20 sponsors in the House (and never got out of Committee or even had a hearing) and had NO companion bill in the Senate

the fact that Obama (along with 80+ other Senators) voted against an amendment to a DHS bill several years ago (after Katrina) to confiscate guns during a "state of "emergency"

Paranoia, pure and simple, that the federal system of checks and balances will not only stumble a bit, but break down completely....something that has never happened in 200+ years.

Or fear mongering.

Take your choice.

MY FEELINGS! Oh, wait... Cynth's got it.

Feelings often get in the way of the facts....particularly on the issue of gun control.

Ya know... KirStang and I went shooting today and I'll be damned if not one snotfaced child was killed by the merciless wrath of our demonic hardware.

...

No, seriously... DC_Dux... how do you feel about using your SSN to identify you as a person everywhere at all times for "security purposes?"

I was thinking about getting a tattoo on my inner left forearm just to make it easier.

Auschwitz'd!

I dont respond to ignorant comparisons to Auschwitz....or Stalin's Russia....or Mao's China....or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.

All such comparisons have been made by the paranoia extremists gun crowd.

Gun control worked for the Nazis.

YouTube - Nazi Gun Control

YouTube - Nazi Gun Control

It must make you a proud American knowing that you served your nation during its slow drift toward Nazism.

Or just another gun nut (correction - "hobbyist") with a warped sense of humor.

When did I serve my nation again? I was in the army but I sure as hell don't remember helping anybody.

I like your style of name-calling. It makes me tingle inside to know that government service = douchebaggery.

...

I think the key to success in this next administration will be to focus on enforcing that which is present instead of trying to gut another legislative chicken and double-take on the entrails. Guns and otherwise.

I DONT like your inferred comparisons to Auchwitz and Nazism.

You know anyone who lived through it...with a number tattooed on their arm.

I do...my SOs father.

Your comparison is ugly and ignorant.

Crompsin...so stick to the facts, please!

No more references to Nazism would be a start.
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 12 : 55 : 41-----
Funny how you conveniently ignored the facts I posted and chose to go the Nazi route:
Perhaps you should wait until we lose our vibrant two party system of free and open elections, the checks and balances between branches of government, and an independent judiciary before offering any such additional pearls of wisdom.

I would prefer not to wait, and I truly believe you don't want to wait for it to get that bad either. When things get that bad history has taught us that in general it's not a good thing for liberals or free thinkers. It's really in your best interest that the people are generally armed, whether you like admitting it or not.

I have no problem with reasonable people being armed if that is their choice....I have never opposed it.

That doesnt mean all citizens should have guaranteed access to all types of firearms or in all circumstances and carry in all locations.

The difference is that I dont believe it will ever get as bad as Nazi Germany, Communist China, Zimbabwe or any other countless dictatorial regimes.

IMO, its delusional and a bogus argument that gun control will somehow lead to a dictatorship.

I believe the safeguards in our system will prevent that....it certainly has for 200+ years.

The Heller decision is only the most recent example of those safeguards. (btw, as a DC resident, I opposed the gun ban as too restrictive)

-----Added 25/1/2009 at 05 : 15 : 15-----
There is absolutely NOTHING that you can point to that would suggest that the gun control measures enacted over the last 50+ years has put the US down the slow path towards totalitarianism.

Playing the NAZI card is cheap theatrics....or.....

PARANOIA or FEAR MONGERING!

i have been sitting here for 3 or so minutes of my life trying to figure out if i should intervene in mod-mode or not...i'll try it this way.

there is an accepted series of features that define totalitarian political regimes.
there is an accepted set of features that define facism. another that defines the characteristics of stalinism, etc. these are not mysterious. you can look them up.

*nowhere* is the presence or absence of gun controls a defining characteristic of any of these regimes.

in the history of stalinist political rhetoric--which i know way too much about--it was routine to call anyone who opposed the cp a fascist. one effect of that was the gradual draining any meaning from the term.
it's funny to see the gun folk reverting to the same tactic.

it's not necessary, it doesn't advance any arguments--and it doesn't refer to anything.

so stop it, please.

there are situations in relation to which the term can mean something.
no good is served by making it just another meme which substitutes for "i really don't like it."

I agree that playing the Nazi card in the way it was used was a cheap shot.

However, I think it would have been entirely appropriate to point out that under Nazi Germany gun registration preceded confiscation. This has been a trend over and over again by governments making power plays (as well as relatively liberal states) and is not unique to Germany.

The safeguards in our system should prevent a slow slide towards dictatorship....the 2'nd amendment is one of those safeguards.

I personally feel we are eroding ALL of our constitutional safeguards and that most of the Amendments as they are interpreted today would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves.

The 2'nd Amendment is simply one of them, but it represents perhaps the last refuge of a scared populace....Our government isn't bad, but if we remove those safeguards now because we have nothing to fear, future generations may have no recourse against a tyrannical gov.

if this government becomes tyrannical, they won't have much recourse anyways.

I disagree completely.

No amount of military might will be able to quell a population which supports a revolution and has at least SOME means of defense/offense.

Quitter.

That kind of mentality makes terrorist attacks and school shootings a viable option in a country that has so many firearms in tha hands of private citizens.

"Awwh, I can't do nuffin'. Shucks, mights-well just lay down 'n die."
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 07 : 19 : 45-----
And so what if it's true?

I fail to see the cheap shot, but let's go with it here for a sec. It sits down range next to all the other cheap shots that refer to gun owners "insert historical figure and/or group with negative connotations here." We're all not Derwood and we're all not DK.

I need to remember to stay out of this thread.