![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Registration is a challenging issue and I think it should be broken down to two parts - political and legal. Being a professional in neither I can give only a layman's point of view. Registration is a political hot button issue. It can be used to weed the not so stalwart from ardent 2nd Amendment supporter politicians, certainly. And by opposing on that level we prevent its implementation. But from a legal point of view it strikes me as a loser for our side. No one was ever denied purchase or possession of a firearm based on registration - registration, by its nature, occurs after one acquires the item. So it is not exclusionary, it doesn't prohibit exercise of a core right. And we should remember that it is a legally allowed taking - it's not someone knocking on your door in extra legal activity. Confiscation occurs, in the legal sense, after some sort of due process. Whether it's the state saying "they're all banned, turn them in" or a court saying the same to an individual we'd have a rough go of it objecting to registration based on the theory it may lead to lawful confiscation. When registration is asserted, in theory, to providing the police a starting point to attach a name to a gun I think we end up on the losing end. Which brings me back to the political aspect. The only way for us to prevail on the issue is politically. That's why gunowners who support registration can be so injurious to our position. It's akin to a minority publicly saying "a little discrimination is OK". True, not all discrimination is unlawful. But why would someone open their yap and in doing so perhaps help the other side who may not be content with just a little discrimination or "just a little" gun control? Last edited by dfletcher; 01-09-2018 at 5:11 PM.. |
#122
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
when they can offer me indisputable evidence that a back ground check actually saved someone's life i might ponder it's usefulness
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm." Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM." |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Exactly.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. Last edited by retiredAFcop; 01-09-2018 at 5:58 PM.. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
For those that want background checks (and registration) for when they buy or sell in a private party transaction, there are simple solutions.
Nothing stops a person selling a gun in a free state from meeting their buyer at a gun shop, and arranging with the shop to run a NICS/Brady check on the buyer. Most shops would probably do that, for a small fee - after all, they don't have to do any extra paperwork or jump through extra hoops - like in CA. Nothing stops a buyer from requesting that their local LEA run the SN of a gun they are buying to make sure that it has not been reported stolen. The LEA may be too busy, or may be able to run that check. Since my current home state is not dysfunctional, we have "real ID" available on our DLs. I can choose to restrict my private party transactions to those who also have a "real ID", if I wish to. Yes, there is no guarantee that every buyer and seller would use such a system, but the same could be said for the special ID that one poster suggested could be used to show that the ID holder was cleared to buy firearms. In short, I have the means at my disposal to do any of the things that people in this thread want mandatory background checks for, without any special law, and without requiring registration.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. |
#125
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The Brady act exempts CCW holders from NICS - not all states permit this. Would be nice to see this widespread. Many other professional licenses or professions require extensive backgound checks - those should also get exemptions.
If there must be checks let it be once a year to register to vote. Voter registration card exempts NICS checks. Ofcourse, repeal of Brady, GCA & NFA are the long game but in the meantime ... |
#126
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
just bought a Maverick 88 shotgun online, won't have to do a background check on that either - more SAVINGS in Nevada, lol im just a couple more gun purchase away from my CCW fees paying for themselves ![]()
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm." Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM." Last edited by FalconLair; 01-09-2018 at 7:05 PM.. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#128
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Case Law:
"resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...urt_of_Appeals .GOV should NOT need to know what one has, unless it is for future confiscation... but that is their end-game anyway. This has been proven time and time again in other countries. Nazi Germany had registration, they were disarmed. Australia, and the UK had registration, and they were disarmed. But wait, THERE'S MORE!: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
__________________
"That's what governments are for - get in a man's way." - Captain Malcolm 'Mal' Reynolds Last edited by the86d; 01-10-2018 at 3:30 AM.. |
#129
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
If the government decided to standardize firearm ownership by national background checks then I want all these states with weapons bans lifted.
I also want open carry reinstated in every state as well as a reciprocity for all CCWs nation wide. Not even mentioning a open registration on class II and III weapons for every state. There has never been a business the government hasn't taken over that failed. Period. So if you are so gullible to think that the minuscule amount of crime that comes from legal guns is paramount to needed registration nationwide then you obviously dont understand the constitution. Open the table up for all weapons I might listen, until then NO, hell No. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#131
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The government as a whole is what we are trying to avoid, not bring in more government. You may trust the government in this instance but to me this is worst case scenario and big government at its most scary. Quote:
An anonymous check that records no information is totally possible. The technology exists and could be done. I think this would be the way to handle it for those that wish to utilize it. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
As always, you bring up Interesting points, but I will address mostly: When registration is asserted, in theory, to providing the police a starting point to attach a name to a gun I think we end up on the losing end. The problem is that we are unable to have an "Honest Debate". 2nd Amendment Supporters often end up on the Losing End [of the Debate] Not Because the Facts don't support our side, but because the Deck is Stacked against us:
of articles about Gun Control over the years. Don't you agree, the Anti Gun Mass Media Always gets the story wrong ? Always. True, on occasion, we get that Rare Unicorn where the author seemingly attempts to present a balanced side on the issue, but they always end up with Anti Gun Propaganda sprinkled throughout the article. After hearing Years of this Anti Gun Propaganda Bull****, I have come to the conclusion: Question: How can you tell a Gun Control Advocate is Lying ? Answer: His Lips Are Moving. What the Anti Gun Left did not anticipate was the rise of social media and the internet, which allowed us to bypass their stranglehold on mass media. Which is why the Media go Bat-***** Crazy when Trump bypasses them and directly talks to the American people via Twitter. Once again, the Facts are on our side of the equation, and we should use it to negate any attempt at Universal Background Checks AKA Registration by using the internet to educate people on the facts, and encourage them to look for themselves to ascertain the truth. This Thread has over 4,000+ views, which is a far larger audience then you or I could have reached in normal conversations, and when you add FBook, Twitter, YouTube and the like Millions of people now have a viable alternative to the traditional Mass Media "Fake News". Although recent developments show that the Left is now actively pursuing methods to stifle Free Speech on the Internet. ![]() Noble |
#133
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As a CCW holder I disagree. No special treatment under the law. The NICS never should have been established. The NRA supported it to prevent a 3 day cooling off period. They should have just fought the cooling off period. The constitution does state not the rights of ccw holder shall not be infringed....
__________________
I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
No.. it won't stop a single criminal from getting a gun.. sorry..
__________________
"Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Theodore Roosevelt Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yeah. Just ask Australia. Wait...
__________________
NRA lifetime member 2AF Defender member When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"? Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’ |
#137
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
No registration (as Long gun where before 2014 in CA). State(s) to destroy all prior registration records including handguns and AWs No waiting period No one in 30 restriction No handgun roster Repeal of NFA for everything but MG and explosive devices. Shall issue MG permits Repeal of 1968 gun control act which among other things is an MG embargo(MG shouldn’t cost $20k and be toys only for the rich) Universal shall issue CCW Universal stand your ground law. No caliber restrictions No ammo ban All state and local level gun control laws null and void I don’t think felons, foreign nationals, the mentally deranged should be allowed to buy guns. MG are extremely dangerous. Some additional scrutiny is appropriate, but a $500 M16 shouldn’t cost a private citizen $20k. Will this stop gun crime. No, gun crime committed by criminals will remain, however gun crimes committed by the State of California will be completely eradicated.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong. ![]() Last edited by Blade Gunner; 01-16-2018 at 9:34 AM.. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
"it's utter nonsense." I am quite willing to debate the issue. Please explain to us what Problem Gun Registration solves and why its a Good Idea to spend (extrapolating from Canada's failure) Billions of $$ ? Even the UK reluctantly admits, buried in a report from 2008, gun registration has very little, if any, impact on solving crime and is not worth the cost and effort linking the databases: Parliament UK Publications 2 Jun 2008. https://publications.parliament.uk/p...80602w0043.htm " As a consequence, it was agreed that any risk of legally held firearms being used for criminal purposes was so low that given the difficulty of automating a matching process between systems, the cost of building such an interface would outweigh any perceived benefits." Noble |
#139
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
He won't. RazoE has a long standing habit of calling other posters ignorant, then never bothering to back up his statement with any facts. He's nothing but hot air.
__________________
NRA lifetime member 2AF Defender member When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"? Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’ |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Folks,
I am for nationwide back round checks, as I have said in previous posts. To clarify, Joe wants to sell Phil and rifle. Joe and Phil go to an FFL, it is run thru the system. Comes back clean, Phil gets Joes rifle. BUT the law has to constructed in a way that the transaction does not retain the the names of the parties involved. The addresses, or the firearm information. Back round check in my mind means just that, just a back round check. No registration. A2 |
#141
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
NRA lifetime member 2AF Defender member When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"? Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’ |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Jane is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record at all, and wants to buy a gun from Joe, because that restraining order she got against her crazy ex-boyfriend isn't doing squat. They go to an FFL and run the transaction through the system. The system rejects the transaction and claims that she's a prohibited person. The sale is thus denied, and she has to go through a time-consuming appeals process to get cleared. While she's in the process of waiting for her appeal to be processed, her ex-boyfriend stabs her to death in her driveway. Don't think it can happen? Something very much like that did happen to Carol Bowne: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/10...un-permit.html Don't think the background check process can issue false denials? Wrong again. The false denial rate for the initial check is around 0.5% (see https://crimeresearch.org/2014/12/cp...ground-checks/ for a more detailed examination). That's 5 out of every thousand people who are initially denied. But it's precisely the initial denial that is sufficient to put someone like Carol Bowne in harm's way. People can lose their lives over this crap! That's what background checks get you. I don't have a problem with having a background check mechanism made available to anyone who wants to sell a firearm, because it enables people who want to perform their due diligence to do so. But to have its use demanded by law? Hell no.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mr Brown,
How is Jane going to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. If it is the boyfriend that has the restraining order? And as I stated, the only acceptable form of nationwide back round checks, is no registration or retention of the transaction. A2 |
#144
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
While the appeals process will most likely result in eventual approval, the point here is that the process can result in immediate denial. When you need a gun, you need a gun, and may need it immediately. The background check process introduces the possibility that you won't be able to get one when you need it, and the failure to get one when you need it can cost you your life, as it did Carol Bowne. Like I said, you are basing your approval of mandatory background checks on the best case scenario. But what matters the most when it comes to laws governing the most sacrosanct Constitutionally-protected fundamental right is the worst case. Let me put it another way: forcible imposition of a system that has any possibility of improperly depriving you of your right to effective self-defense is unacceptable. A mandatory background check system is precisely such a system. You can't make it foolproof, so you can't rightfully impose it upon the law-abiding population. People will die because of it, and that's a fact. Carol Bowne is proof. Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 01-16-2018 at 5:36 PM.. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Let us suppose UBC took effect 1 Jan 2018. Let's suppose I live in a state that prior to 1 Jan 2018 allowed (about 2/3rds of states do) private sales. I have many "paperless" handguns in my collection, let's go with my 1935 made Colt Shooting Master in 357 Magnum. It's now 16 Jan 18 and for some reason I have incidental contact with the police - it could just as well be a Game Warden. I advise them of the gun. Since laws are meant to be enforced they ask "how long have you had it?" and when I answer "long before 1 Jan 2018" they say "prove it". Let's put the above on hold for now ..... ![]() Same situation as above. Same gun. Except that you sold it to me, privately and illegally with no paper, on 2 Jan 18. Without a record of when that gun changed hands how do I protect myself against an over eager cop? Conversely, without a record of when that gun changed hands how do we expect the police to catch "bad guys" and enforce the law? Now, you can default to "if you say it's yours the cops can't question otherwise" and my response is that sure takes the universal out of UBC. It is important to note that with UBC one is not simply saying "this guy is OK" but rather that one is memorializing the transaction - that's a "must do" otherwise, as demonstrated above, one cannot distinguish between compliance and violation. Further, more than recording transactions from 1 Jan 2018 forward all privatey held firearms must be registered to establish a base of compliance, grandfathering them. Otherwise there are about 350 million exceptions to the law. The above has nothing to do with whether UNC can be challenged in court or whether it's effective. I'm asking simply how a viable, enforceable UBC can be constructed without universal registration. Last edited by dfletcher; 01-16-2018 at 4:28 PM.. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gents,
Mr Brown, Mr Fletcher the example that Mr Brown cited misses the mark. The lady files a restraining order, how could her filing a RO make her a prohibited person? As I have stated, the example I gave, two folks want to exchange a firearm. They go to an FFL, an inquiry is made. If both are clear, exchange is made. No info retained or registration. Yes mistakes have been made, transactions have denied wrongly. This could be remedied by a strong appeal system to correct errors. Any system devised by man is not fool proof. But in recognition of the changing nature of society and the nature of mass communication. Instant checks, 2A protections built in is not much to ask. A2 |
#147
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() |
#148
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
You think in my scenario that the denial was because she was a prohibited person. No. In my scenario, she is not a prohibited person and the background check mechanism made a mistake, and improperly denied her. Please revisit my questions with the above in mind.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I guess RazoE wants Gun Registration because Feelings, since he apparently is unable to articulate any good reason for spending BILLIONS of Dollars on a Left Wing Boondoggle when our National Debt is approaching $21,000,000,000,000 Dollars. ![]() ![]() http://www.usdebtclock.org/ For something that won't solve any problems except to give the willfully ignorant a "Good Feeling" because "at least we did Something !" is sheer Stupidity. Noble |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Your method is flawed because it clears the buyer only and there is no way to verify if the gun in one's possession went through the process. There is no way of distinguishing between compliance and non-compliance. It is self-apparent, it seems to me, that "no record" precludes verifying compliance or violation. How would the process you describe resolve the circumstance I proposed between a lawful transfer and possession and an unlawful transfer? Is doesn't. All it does is verify that Individual A, at the time of a background check, was not prohibited from taking possession of a gun. That may be a worthwhile goal, but it is not UBC. With respect to your closing paragraph - you suggest that restricting the sale of private property, with no proof of public safety benefit, isn't too much to ask. Because we're in a "changing world". The same could be said for unfettered interstate travel or privacy, of due process or free speech. After all, each carries with it some risk to society, yes? And I would note you seem to suggest UBC ought to exist on its own because it is good, rather than a vehicle for getting something in return. |
#151
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Never said I advocate registration. I don't. My comment was about, should it happen, that it would lead to confiscation.
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
and very little explanation. I guess we will just have to take your word for it, since you didn't bother to explain how you arrived at this conclusion. Lets review cases just in Canada to start with, since we have a lot in common with our friends to the North, in which Gun Registration lead to confiscation: Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was used to id and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001. By Dave Kopel, research director, and Dr. Paul Gallant & Dr. Joanne Eisen http://davekopel.org/NRO/2000/Civil-...-in-Canada.htm One reason is they have realized that gun registration really does lead to confiscation. Handguns have been registered in Canada since 1934, and for decades, the Canadian government only used the registration records for innocent purposes. But shortly after winning election in November 1993, the new government imposed an administrative decree banning over half of all handguns. The current registered owners may retain the guns until they die, and then the guns must be surrendered to the government. No compensation will be paid for the confiscation. Then Canada decided to Confiscate Armi Jager AP-80 and the Walther G22: ![]() Registration Will Lead to Confiscation The Blaze. 1/9/2013 https://www.theblaze.com/contributio...o-confiscation Last year Canada ended its national long gun registry, a national database of every rifle and shotgun in the country that was supposed to help police track the movement of and sale of weapons. When it was introduced twenty years ago critics said the registration of firearms would eventually lead to confiscation, a criticism dismissed as ridiculous, yet that’s what happened and more right up until its dismantling. As recently as last winter law abiding gun owners who had complied with the registry were having their rifles confiscated. In late 2011 hundreds if not thousands of people who had legally purchased the Armi Jager AP80, a .22 calibre variant of the AK47, were informed that their rifles had been deemed illegal and must be surrendered . “You are required by law to return your firearm registration certificates, without delay, either by mail to the address shown in the top left corner of this page or in person to a peace officer or firearms officers. You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer of Chief Firearms Officer or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them,” read the letter sent by the Canadian Firearms Centre. Copy of the Letter found here: http://firearmslaw.ca/wp-content/upl...ion-notice.pdf A few more Hints: Gun Registration has been used for Confiscation in all of the following: California New York City Australia Many foreign countries as well, which I won't bother to list for now. So we already have multiple examples of it happening, always with the Anti Gunners vehemently denying it will happen ![]() record saying otherwise. Noble |
#153
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
1) This isn't Canada or Australia. 2) There was what, one case involving a particular rifle in California years ago? Haven't all handguns (and now rifles) been registered in California for decades? Have they been confiscated? 3) Have RAWs been confiscated? 4) NFA items elsewhere? Do you actually believe such a thing could happen nationwide? As I said, utter nonsense.
|
#154
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Ah, the old "it can't happen here" Disney-esque approach to problem solving. Yeah, they said that about all sorts of things in many places. Nazi Germany couldn't happen. Until it did. So keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the only way to ensure that it really can't happen here is to presume that it CAN and to take the steps necessary to actually prevent it. Like, say, preventing registration schemes from seeing the light of day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#155
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
We call "confiscation" and "infringement" when SOME are confiscated. So, whether someone wants to take all of them or not, we don't want it and we will fight against it. To understand why, consider someone trying to justify sodomy laws by saying "nobody wants to ban ALL sex." Or, in your case, "they only banned one type of sex and it was decades ago."
__________________
![]() |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
However, it's a good point ![]()
__________________
![]() |
#157
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
~ 145,000 weapons are registered under the 1999 Assault Weapons Ban
~ 1 in 100 people die each year in the US for any reason .01 deaths/year x 17 years X 145,000 firearms = 25,000 weapons confiscated via this "harmless" registration scheme. ...and the exact same fate awaits the remaining 120,000 firearms, legally obtained and responsibly held by their owners, taken from them only because of an arbitrary and capricious government with questionable motives. And this year there are many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more being added to that list. People saying that "no confiscation has ever happened," are blatantly (and presumably deliberately) prevaricating.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! --Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775 |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So Confiscation Doesn't Matter Unless its Nationwide ? That's your Gold Standard ?! ![]() You admit its already happened in California (see jwkincal excellent post on the matter), and then proceed to basically say: "Hey, it hasn't happened yet, (even though it has) so it will Never Happen !" Wow, are you in denial. California RAWs are being confiscated through Attrition... Just because its a slow process doesn't mean its any less of a confiscation. Your legally owned property cannot be sold or even given away to your own family, with basically the state of California stealing it from your estate. And lets not forget about California bypassing Due Process with Department of Justice’s Armed Prohibited Persons System, where DOJ agents can raid peoples homes and seize their guns just because their name shows up on a List, just like when they Confiscated this mans gun collection, despite him Not being a Threat to himself or others: Legal Gun Collection Seized http://www.guns.com/2015/11/20/attor...tion-is-legal/ Quote:
541 illegally confiscated firearms, but Only after a lengthy, expensive lawsuit. How many people have had their property seized like this, and could not afford a lengthy and expensive lawsuit ? Lets review More Cases where some form of Confiscation (thru outright seizure or attrition) has already occurred in US: Katrina: A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ned-in-america U.S. Virgin Islands (Order issued) Gun Confiscation: An Evil Wind Blows in America https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...ows-in-america New Jersey: Toughest Ban on Assault Rifles in U.S. Takes Effect in N.J. Today LA Times. 5-31-1991. http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-...assault-rifles Confiscation on the minds of NJ Senators, showing their real intent: CONFISCATION! NJ Senators CAUGHT Mocking Gun Owners Committee Meeting May 9, 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMptQ_YfvzE New York New York, 2013: The SAFE Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act There is more, but this is sufficient to show Confiscation is on the minds of the Anti Gunners, and they will implement whenever they can, despite constantly assuring Americans "they Support the 2nd Amendment" ![]() To pretend that Nation Wide Confiscation could Never Happen is to ignore history. If you had said "Nation Wide Confiscation" is Unlikely to occur at this moment in time, I would agree with you on that one point, and only under our current situation (Pro Gun President, Republicans holding Congress). But the Democrats are absolutely obsessed with disarming America, and as long as they persist is shoving ever increasing levels of Gun Control on Americans (and Billionaires like Bloomberg & Soros fund it) the danger will remain. Noble |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Whether one prefers to use the term confiscation or lawful taking we should remember each comes about as a result of legislation and/or due process. To assert neither can happen is to in effect say neither any state nor the United States will ever pass such legislation. If there are folks here sufficiently equipped to tell the future I'd prefer they instead send me their line on the upcoming Super Bowl results.
![]() |
#160
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Why not have mandatory cameras in houses to make sure no one is beating their children or spouse?
While we are at it how about mandatory GPS installed in vehicles to make sure no one is speeding. The GPS can have a unique identifier to make sure the car is not stolen...
__________________
I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |