The only solution is 100% registration.

[Sadena Meti]

You buy a gun, you go through a background check, maybe a waiting period, and the gun is registered in your name.

You sell that gun, you MUST go through a dealer, there is a background check, and the registration is transferred to the new owner.

If your gun is lost or stolen, you must report it to the police otherwise it stays in your name.


If your gun is used in a crime, and it is still registered to you, and you haven't previously reported it lost or stolen, YOU are held responsible for the crime. Accessory to Murder.


100% Registration, 100% Responsibility

Know where every gun in America is at all times.

No more shill buying, no more cash and carry.

All of this must be implemented at a national level.

And it will never happen unless the NRA is outlawed.

And while we're at it, get a ballistic sample from every gun and put that into an FBI database right next to fingerprints.

[MineralMan]

1. Jumping right in, eh? Well, you've found the right place.

You're sure to cause quite a stir with this one. What fun for you, I bet.

[-..__...]

2. Not surprising coming from someone with a hammer and sickle...

and anarchist logo for their sig pic.

[Name removed]

368. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sadena Meti]

382. My signature says exactly what I believe in. And I am no child (ad hominem).

I am giving solutions for the system as it currently is, not solutions for the world as I wish it were.

I would like to see a mini-14, AK-47, or AR-15 in every household. But registered and secured.

[beevul]

383. Its not nice to claim people said things they did not in fact say.

"And I am no child (ad hominem)."


Nobody called you a child.

You claim by inferrence that someone did.


The term used was "young person".


Judging by your website, you are early to mid thirties.


Are you NOT young?


If that poster wished to call you a child, that poster likely would have used the word child.

In any case, it is wise to keep your words out of other peoples mouths, and stick to the words they use instead.


Of course you can claim that poster MEANT child, but that poster, and those of us familiar with him, have a much better idea what he meant than you do.

[NewMoonTherian]

386. I wasn't even arguing the topic at hand.

I certainly wasn't trying to discredit you in my previous post, because I think that most of the people here already view your idea as invalid. I was just speculating on where you were coming from, based on your statements.

[jeepnstein]

396. So you're an anarchist...

who wants the government to be involved in everyone's business? I find that odd.

[Sadena Meti]

448. As I've said for the third time, I'm providing solutions for the system that exists, not the...

system that I wish existed.

[rrneck]

497. And as you've been told about two hindred times

your solution is no solution at all.

[Sadena Meti]

498. It's a partial, gradual, percentage-wise asymptotic solution to the gun problem in this country....

as it exists now. In a better world, I could propose better solutions.


I've very pleased to have culled half a dozen supporters in this, considering it is posted in a pro-gun forum.

[rrneck]

509. You got that firearm free self defense solution yet?

That's where the rubber meets the road.

You can talk percentages all day and it won't mean anything. You're just another (amateur) ideologue with a big idea to flog. Unfortunately you are more interested in the ideology than the people it will impact.

Look for solutions, not systems.

[sylveste]

549. solution to what exactly

?

[Ship of Fools]

132. yeah, it worked well for me, too ... people pissed on both sides, apparently

[HopeHoops]

3. Well now...

:popcorn:

[rl6214]

4. Too many out there right now to get them all registered

People will just hide them in their homes so they do not have to register them or claim they were stolen when the registration starts.

How will you enforce every gun transaction going thru a dealer?

How could you ever stop "shill buying" (straw purchase)? You can't hook a buyer up to a lie detector and I don't think there are enough clairvoyants out there to know what every buyer is thinking.

Last time I checked, you can't outlaw orginazations like the NRA.

Ballistic sample from every gun? Again, how are you going to make that happen with, what, 300 million guns out there right now.

Not to mention making all this happen to an item that is protected by the constitution.

[Sadena Meti]

9. Easy answers to easy questions:

"People will just hide them in their homes so they do not have to register them or claim they were stolen when the registration starts."

And if an unregistered gun is ever found it is destroyed and the possessor prosecuted.


"How will you enforce every gun transaction going thru a dealer?"

By registering it to the owners name. If Bob get caught with Bill's gun, both get nailed.


"How could you ever stop "shill buying" (straw purchase)? You can't hook a buyer up to a lie detector and I don't think there are enough clairvoyants out there to know what every buyer is thinking."

Doesn't matter what he is thinking. The guns are now all in his name. He is now responsible for what is done with them.


"Last time I checked, you can't outlaw orginazations like the NRA."

Organizations have been outlawed. The Real KKK was sued into non-existence.
During the McCarthy era many groups were outlawed.


"Ballistic sample from every gun? Again, how are you going to make that happen with, what, 300 million guns out there right now."

10 year grace period to bring your gun in. If you are caught with a gun that has not been sampled, you are prosecuted.


"Not to mention making all this happen to an item that is protected by the constitution."

Without getting into a serious debate about what the 2nd Amendment REALLY meant, ownership is guaranteed, not the terms of that ownership. Otherwise they never would have been able to restrict felons from owning firearms.

[rl6214]

13. You have lots of answers but none of them are realistic

I have owned guns for 30 years and none of them have ever crossed paths with the police. I have shown my CCL to cops and none of them have ever asked to see my gun. I will go another 30 years (God willing) without any cops ever seeing any of my guns. So how is that registration going to work out without door to door searches?

[Sadena Meti]

16. You apply the law and let time pass.

Percentages narrow. You get 50% the first generation, 75% the second, and so on.

Or hear is a brilliant idea, in order to buy ammunition, you must bring in a registration card for a gun of that caliber.

Don't want to register your guns? Fine, no bullets for you.

[rl6214]

20. I make my own bullets, much cheaper, no registration.

[Sadena Meti]

22. A fringe will always slip through.

[rl6214]

32. A fringe?

Most everyone I know in the gun community (and I know a lot) make their own bullets. It is the casual user that does not so it is not just a fringe group.

[Sadena Meti]

34. Selfloading is most common for shotguns and standard rifles. Most people buy ammunition. Huge Market

[rl6214]

49. NO, you are just wrong

I reload pistol calibers in .380, 9mm, .40 ca, .45 ca, 38 special, 357 mag and in rifles its .223, 7.62x.39, 30.06, 8mm

Don't do shotgun shells anymore since I can normally find them on sale about a cheaply as I can make my own.

[spin]

168. Most of the regular shooters at the pistol range ,,,

I shot at before I retired reloaded their own ammo.

They felt that not only was it cheaper, they could tailor their ammo to the handgun to make an accurate combination.

Many used progressive presses such as the Dillon RL 550B and could crank out large quantities of ammo in a short period of time.



I used a RCBS Rock Chucker single stage press and reloaded thousands and thousands of rounds without problem.



The Rock Chucker press kit will cost a little over $300 and the much faster Dillon will run less than $450.

[SteveW]

551. Oh, my! That box of 100 .38s I just got is not "common."

Please, you aren't even close in this debate.

You can no more get rid of guns than you can marijuana. Your's is a classic big-government prohibitionist scheme, doomed to failure. BTW, you may wish to examine Canada's experience with the cost and effectiveness of "registering" and "controlling" guns.

[cleanhippie]

40. Considering the tone of your posts, you may qualify as "fringe" yourself.

[Sadena Meti]

41. Oh I am, I am. Just look at my signature.

[cleanhippie]

50. Oh, I see it.

And have concluded that you certainly ARE "fringe", as you described it, and seem to lack a basic grasp on the reality of this subject.
But hey, good luck with this meme. There are some other authoritarians here that will gladly embrace your ideology.

[Sadena Meti]

53. One look at my ideologies (if you understood them) would show I am not an authoritarian.

[cleanhippie]

59. Uh, friend, the OP you posted here is a textbook study in authoritarianism.

And if you actually believe what you posted, then you most certainly are an authoritarian.

[Sadena Meti]

64. No, it's about ACCOUNTABILITY. Have your guns but have responsibilities too.

[cleanhippie]

79. I am perfectly responsible and accountable already.

Why should I or anyone else that has never broken the law be punished for the crimes and offenses of those that do?

[Sadena Meti]

82. How is registering your firearm a punishment?

[cleanhippie]

92. Why is it necessary?

My guns, and most other legal gun owners have NEVER been and NEVER will be involved in a crime. You want registration? then YOU have to make a compelling argument for it. So far, your arguments have been less than compelling.

[Sadena Meti]

96. Every car is registered, so that those that break the law can be held accountable. Do you object?

[cleanhippie]

99. Driving a car on public roads is not a civil right.

Owning a gun is.

[Sadena Meti]

112. To which I would have to go into a long debate as to what the Second Amendment really means / meant

And I'm not going to because I have to vacuum the house.

[rl6214]

117. It's already been decided by the SCOTUS

So with that said, do you really think the 2a can be amended, because that's what it would take.

[Sadena Meti]

129. Nothing in registration contradicts the Second Amendment as written or interpreted.

[cleanhippie]

123. What it means is what it means right now. It has been confirmed and reaffrirmed.

It is the way it is, nothing is going to change that.

[Sadena Meti]

130. You can pass gun laws like the National Firearms Act without changing the Second Ammendment

[cleanhippie]

131. Don't think so.

But hey, you want to spearhead that campaign, have at it.

[AndyTiedye]

128. Vehicles Used on Private Property Do Not Need to be Registered

I don't like guns and don't own any. I don't think it is just or fair
to make someone an accessory to a crime that is committed with someone's
stolen gun before the owner knows it is stolen.

While I don't think registration violates the 2nd Amendment, I don't think
it is workable either.

[beevul]

267. Uh no.

Every car that is used on PUBLIC venues is registered.


The racecar I used to own, for example, was not registered, and was not required to be.


The trucks used exclusively on farms - of which there are MANY, are not required to be.

[Sadena Meti]

268. Which still represent a mintority of the total of vehicles in this country.

[beevul]

278. It destroys the point you were attempting to make...

It destroys the point you were attempting to make - which is that its required.


It isnt.


You were wrong.


Arguing percentages changes that not one iota.

[Sadena Meti]

281. It was an analogy, and it worked.

In this case there would be no such exemptions so it is a moot point. But as I've said for the fifth time now, there will always be a fringe that falls through the cracks.

[beevul]

283. No it really didn.t.

"In this case there would be no such exemptions so it is a moot point."


This is exactly why it didnt work.

You really aren't very good at this.

[Bold Lib]

438. You can say it as many times as you like, but you are still wrong.

Private ownership of cars is not subject to regulation, nor is private ownership/transfer of firearms. Once the firearm leaves interstate commerce the feds loose regulatory power over it.

[Sadena Meti]

449. Wrong, the NFA applies to legal transfers within the state, so the federal government still has...

it's finger in the pie. The National Firearms Act applies at many levels.

[Bold Lib]

437. Wrongo, every car is not registered nor is it law.

Only cars that are driven on public roads must be registered. Cars on private land that do not go on to public roads do not (and most often) are not registered.

[Sadena Meti]

450. That point has been made 4 times and countered. Read before you post.

[beevul]

453. But it HASNT been countered.

You just dont seem to get it.


When you make the argument about cars and registration, and try to draw a parallel to guns being registered, you are:


COMPARING OWNERSHIP OF A THING, TO USE OF A DIFFERENT THING IN A PUBLIC VENUE.


Two quite different things.

[Sadena Meti]

466. Not when 99% of the "things" are being used in a public venue.

We are an urbanized country. And I do not count a tractor that can do 25mph as an automobile.

[beevul]

480. You need to get out more.

"Not when 99% of the "things" are being used in a public venue."

99% of guns ARENT being used in a public venue. if 99% of the 300 million+ guns in America WERE, you'd know it.



And once again, that dodges the issue of OWNERSHIP.

OWNERSHIP, is the issue at hand here.

"We are an urbanized country."

Sez you. Want to compare Urban square milage to non urban square mileage?

Didnt think so. You need to get out more. America is not one giant city. Most of america, in fact, is rural. I've been through 47 states, multiple times, and explored a little over half of them somewhat in depth. I know firsthand.

I've seen it.


"And I do not count a tractor that can do 25mph as an automobile."

And I do not count owning something as using something in public.

They are two different things, and you continue ignore that simple fact.

[Sadena Meti]

483. OK, 79%

""Not when 99% of the "things" are being used in a public venue."

99% of guns AREN'T being used in a public venue. if 99% of the 300 million+ guns in America WERE, you'd know it."

The things I was referencing were cars.

""We are an urbanized country."

Says you. Want to compare Urban square mileage to non urban square mileage?"

79% of the population lives in urban settings.

Only 16.4% live in the truly rural non-incorporated areas. So even if I were to give you the assumption that every vehicle owned by someone in a rural area is not registered, which is a ridiculous notion but I'll let it slide, that would still mean that 85.6% of vehicles are registered. I'll try to find more exact figures.



PS. Forgive me for correcting your spelling in the quotations, I just abhor the red squiggly lines my Mac puts under them.

[Sadena Meti]

485. The final say on Registered and Unregistered Motor Vehicles, for use in analogies.

Fact: There are approximately 250,000,000 registered motor vehicles in this country. (2006)

Fact: There are 196 drivers for every 231 vehicles. (2003)

Fact: There are approximately 300,000,000 people in this country. (2010)

Fact: 20% are 14 years or younger, so we can rule them out as drivers. (2010)

Assumption: The remaining 80% are drivers. (A massive overestimate but I'll give it to you.)

Result: There are at most 283,000,000 vehicles in this country.


So that makes at MOST 33,000,000 unregistered vehicles. Or 13%.

[beevul]

491. I didn't think you could be more wrong, but you proved you can.

"Fact: 20% are 14 years or younger, so we can rule them out as drivers."

Not a fact.

Kids here get their school permit at...14 I believe.

Second, kids as young as 10 drive grain trucks - yes, semi trucks - around at farms.

I know. I live in a community FULL of them.


Like I said, you need to get out more.


And besides, it doesnt matter.

The issue is usage versus ownership.


One is NOT required to register a vehicle simply to own it, as you'd propose for guns. So its a bad comparison, and a fatally flawed analogy.


End of story.


Good analogy?

Concealed carry - license to carry IN PUBLIC.

Though somehow I doubt you like that idea.

[Sadena Meti]

492. As I've said before I prefer OPEN CARRY to CONCEALED CARRY and think it serves a better deterrence.

[Bold Lib]

518. The numbers are irrelevant. It is the law that matters.

A car on private land does not need registration. A firearm in private hands can not be forced to be registered. You have lost this debate and are acting like a child with his fingers in his ears yelling La La La La, I can't hear you.

[beevul]

486. Goalpost move.

"79% of the population lives in urban settings."

We werent talking population, we were talking country.


"The things I was referencing were cars."

Yes, and your're still talking usage not ownership.

You are still comparing ownership to usage.

And thats fail.

Every time.

[Sadena Meti]

488. And how many (yes I know some do) own cars they don't use? Use of a car and possession of a...

firearm are comparable because each is a means to an end. If you never intend to use you firearm, offensively or defensively, why buy it? When you park your car, do you no longer own it?

[beevul]

493. No.

Usage and ownership are simply NOT comparable, no matter how many times you claim otherwise, and no matter what words you use doing it.

That you can't see that...is why you have been owned in this thread.

[Sadena Meti]

495. Ownership is use.

This may go above your head so I'll break it down.


In several ways.


Private citizens own guns and keep them in their house in case of home invasion or burglary.

Criminals are aware of this, and are thus more wary when they consider committing crimes.

The deterrent is USED.


Concealed carry means that members of the general popular may be armed at any given place and time.

Criminals are aware of this, and are thus more wary when they consider committing crimes.

The deterrent is USED.


The gun many never be touched but ownership makes use of it.


I buy a GE Vindicator Minigun (at 10% discount) and mount it on my front porch.

Do you think that will have any effect on the mail carrier, neighbors, and Mormons?

It is USED.





And for the tenth time, I am not against gun ownership. I want an armed populous, ideally with good rifles like the Mini-14, the AK-47, and the AR-15, because you can't have a popular uprising without arms.

[beevul]

501. Really?

Do you own a toilet?

Are you using it now?


Do you own a bed?

Are you using it now?


Do you own a condom?

Are you using it now?


Do you own a toothebrush?

Are you using it now?


Give it up already.

You've lost both the argument with me, and the argument in this thread.



Just stop already.

[Sadena Meti]

503. The argument I gave was Deterrent is Use. If it were not, we would have no nuclear weapons.

[beevul]

504. The nuclear strawman...or a variation of it.

Yeah, dead horse - see previous post.

[Bold Lib]

517. No it has not been countered. You just repeat your failed analogy.

Repeating it over and over does not make it true. The car analogy on public roads does not hold up to private ownership of firearms. If anything the car analogy can only be applied to the public carrying of firearms (open or concealed), and even then it is on very thing water do to the 2A.

You really don't know what you are talking about. You WANT it to be so, but that does not MAKE it so.

[SteveW]

553. No, you have been check-mated. Solidly and obviously. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

542. Calling bullshit!

Titles are for establishing ownership of taxable property. Cars are not registered for accountability, they are registered for revenue.

In most states you have to pay property taxes for merely owning a motor vehicle. If you operate that vehicle on a public road, you will pay additional fees to put tags on it.

If it is a vehicle that you use exclusively off the road, let's say a race car, or one you use exclusively on your own property, like a farm truck you do not need a license to operate it and it does not need tags from the state.

You will, however, still pay property taxes on them for as long as they exist.

[Hoopla Phil]

544. Don't bother with that one. . .

[rrneck]

102. Accountable to what authority?

:rofl:

[Sadena Meti]

105. As it would have to be a federal law, it would be like violating the National Firearms Act.

[Upton]

67. Yeah sure..

advocating the circumvention of civil liberties, banning legitimate organizations, charging folks with crimes they didn't commit...

Sure, you don't sound authoritarian at all :eyes:

[Sadena Meti]

70. I give you a gun to kill someone, that's a crime. This is just extending that law.

[cleanhippie]

We already HAVE laws that cover that.

[Sadena Meti]

85. Which is why I said I am EXTENDING that law. You leave an unlocked gun out and your kid kills...

someone, then you are charged as an accessory.

[cleanhippie]

89. Uh huh.

While I heartily agree with responsibility of ones firearms, good luck with THAT.

[one-eyed fat man]

387. So your kid finds your car keys....

and since he's 14 and can't be tried as an adult in Wisconsin....



You should go to prison because he got pissed at the Critical Massholes blocking his way to his dope dealer?

Maybe if you raised him better he wouldn't become such a shithead?

Got anymore manure to spread?

[Sadena Meti]

451. A car is not designed to be an instrument of death.

[beevul]

454. Non sequitur.

Ownership of cars is also not specifically constitutionally protected.

[Sadena Meti]

467. I dare say that the public cares more about own cars than owning guns.

[beevul]

478. And I dare say that car ownership has no bearing on elections.

Gun ownership, and attacks on it, do.

[Sadena Meti]

479. If congress enacted a law saying any car getting less than 20mpg must be retired...

you'd have riots in the streets.

[beevul]

482. Retired from use in public you mean.

Thats not the same thing as saying a person cant own it.

Remember?

Ownership is the issue.

[Sadena Meti]

487. And what would the 79% urbanized population do with their now unusable vehcile?

[beevul]

494. The same thing most people do with guns they aren't allowed to carry publicly.

Not commit crimes with them.



And if they aren't committing crimes with them, its no business of yours, mine, or goverments, if they own them.

[Sadena Meti]

496. They are just going to happily abandon their gas guzzling cars and buy new ones?

[beevul]

506. What difference does it make to you...

What difference does it make to you, and what business is it of yours mine or anyone elses, if they aren't breaking any laws with them?

[Sadena Meti]

507. You are avoiding the point that if the government tried to pass a law "confiscating" cars it would..

never fly with the public. That is the point. The mass confiscation of firearms is not going to come to pass. And if it did, it to would not fly.

The fact that one is constitutional and one is not does not change what would happen. All it means is that one was an idea some guys two centuries ago thought was a good one. Bring one of the founding fathers forward to the present and he'd probably die from culture shock. Except maybe Jefferson.

[friendly_iconoclast]

510. Cars kill more people than guns in the US. And there are fewer cars than guns in the US

So cars are rather more efficient than guns at dealing death, at least in the US....

[SteveW]

552. Oh, my, but you are. Try looking at the First Amendment.

[MineralMan]

156. Really? You cast your own bullets?

Or did you mean you load your own ammo?

[spin]

173. You can do both ...

Dillon RL 550B


Lyman Mini-Mag Furnace Master Casting Kit 110 Volt

[MineralMan]

233. Yes, I know that. The question was to someone else, though,

Who "makes" his own bullets. I believe he's actually referring to reloading, but using the wrong terminology.

[spin]

239. Even if you cast your bullets you still have to get primers and powder ...

so do any of us really make our own bullets?

[MineralMan]

253. No, not really.

I did, though, one time. I built a little cannon out of some pipe. I made gunpowder from scratch, from sulfur from a hot spring and charcoal. I'm afraid I did have to buy the saltpeter, though. I cast a ball from auto wheel weights, using a sinker mold that was the right size. I fired it once satisfactorily. It was a pain in the ass, but it was possible.

You're right, though, no matter how you do it, you're going to be buying components from somewhere, so that could be controlled.

[Sadena Meti]

254. You can make a 12 gauge zip gun in an afternoon just from supplies from Home Depot. I've done it.

[spin]

257. It would be hard to register such a weapon. (n/t)

[MineralMan]

259. Yes? So?

I made a .25 caliber smooth-bore pistol with stuff from the hardware store, too. What's your point? Try as I might, though, I don't believe I could make a round of .25 Auto ammunition.

I'm really not interested in shit-stirring, thanks. I won't reply to any more of your posts.

[rrneck]

261. That post is beyond stupid. nt

[Bold Lib]

440. Did you submit your Form 1 and pay your $200.00 tax?

[Sadena Meti]

452. Actually I'd have to have a liscense BEFORE I made it to make it legal.

Fortunately it can be disassembled in seconds into an innocent pile of piping and a strange spring loaded plunger.

[Bold Lib]

515. That is what I was asking. Did you do that or did you commit a felony.

No it cannot be disassembled into an "innocent pile" of anything. It is called constructive intent and it is a felony.

I suspect that you did not do this legally based on your past posts. It also perfectly illustrates that this gun control laws only affect those that follow the law.

[oneshooter]

315. Flint lock or match lock. n/t

[rl6214]

329. Both for handguns

Get my rifle loads from a friend.

[NewMoonTherian]

376. Casting bullets isn't a big problem.

What most people don't have the resources or knowhow to do is turn their own new brass. Those casings are going to wear out in time, and unless you have a massive stockpile, you're gonna be sunk.

Smokeless powder is also a luxury that would go by the wayside if gun owners had to start making their own.

[one-eyed fat man]

328. Time passes

The gun I carry daily left the Colt factory in 1913. I have revolvers I shoot regularly that don't even count as a gun because they were built in the 1880's. I have a rifle that was built in 1874 that still is used to shoot in BPCR matches. Not replicas, ORIGINALS.

The oldest gun I own is a British Short Land Pattern Musket (2nd Model) that was likely brought to the Colonies sometime in the 1760's. I am sure it has long since been struck from Her Majesty's property books and completely forgotten about 250 years before a 4473 existed. It was built, largely by hand, at a time when a water wheel was the most advanced method of powering machinery; steam engines being a couple of generations in the future. Its lock throws a better spark and it has more positive ignition than any modern manufactured reproduction flintlock I have fired.



Here in Kentucky there are several well-known and dozens of only locally known saltpeter caves. Living history types have produced gunpowder from cave dirt using methods recorded 250 years ago. As for ignition, how many "Flint Hills" were named that by our really ancient ancestors making spear points a couple thousand years ago?

My hand-napped flints don't last as long as the 18th century British Army surplus ones do, but using them, homemade powder and hand cast round balls, this musket will still throw a 3/4 inch chunk of lead with sufficient accuracy to hit a man at 100 yards, and with practice, at the Redcoat recruit's pace of 4 shots a minute.

How do you effectively ban that ancient a technology? You'll have about as much luck in banning fire and organizing lighter buy backs.

[Hoyt]

333. I pretty much agree. The gunners say, it won't do any good. But, long-term it will. Start now.

The longer we wait, the longer it will take to get things under control.

Besides, the dealers will love it.

Those who planned on selling for "top dollar" to any friggin terrorist/unregistered gun accumulator -- as long as they have cash -- will just have to whine. Boo Ho.

[NewMoonTherian]

380. I wouldn't argue that it won't do any good.

I argue that the damage it would do isn't worth the good it would accomplish.

You're better off following current operating procedures - trying to crush out rights piecemeal - because there are still enough freedom-loving people in the United States that a massive registration scheme would result in violence. In fifty years or one hundred years, that may not be the case. Time is really on your side.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. nevermind

[Sadena Meti]

28. There have since sprung up new groups using the KKK name.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. wouldn't that make them just as real? how can they be un-real?

If they use KKK then what else could they be But KKK...?

[Sadena Meti]

47. They are little groups with no organization or power like the real KKK had.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. what is N.U.T. & Loony?

[Sadena Meti]

56. A reference to I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again, and Monty Python

[Tuesday Afternoon]

301. still and all KKK is KKK and thank god it is no longer as organized or

as powerful.

[Upton]

29. You're holding up the McCarthy era as an example..

of how we can ban the organizations you don't approve of? Rather ironic coming from someone who is a self described communist.

[Sadena Meti]

36. I am saying that is possible and has been done. I also held up the KKK.

[cleanhippie]

35. Wow, so it sounds like you want to live in a facist state.

You desire to live under the thumb of an oppressive and authoritarian regime. Good luck with that.

[Oneka]

78. i don't think

that he/she wants to live under the "thumb"

He/she wants to direct the "thumb".

Most totalitarians want the state to enforce rules at their behest, but seldom want to be governed by those same rules.

[Katya Mullethov]

266. Superman is a prohibited person now too

Superman isnt a felon , but he did relinquish his citizenship .

WHat I see is someone already under The Man's thumb and not exactly ambivalent about seein' the rest of us join in on the fun . Ahahahha!!!


fuckthatnoise .

[PavePusher]

57. Police state, much?

Constitutional violation, much?

"During the McCarthy era many groups were outlawed."
Yeah, I think you're at the wrong website. We're done here....

[Hangingon]

Is there enough room in Siberia to enforce this fantasy?

[Starboard Tack]

245. Hey, good luck trying to argue common sense around here,

but mostly you're dealing with the "horse is already out of the barn" crowd. Some of them are quite good, though. So you'll definitely have the opportunity to hone your debating skills. Kinda like a bullfight, and you are the bull. Lots of jabs from picadors, but not many matadors.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

298. you call this "common sense"

surely Not what Paine meant at all...

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/

Published in 1776, Common Sense challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy. The plain language that Paine used spoke to the common people of America and was the first work to openly ask for independence from Great Britain.

[Starboard Tack]

323. I think if Tom Paine, whom I've always admired, were alive today,

he would say "Be careful what you wish for." It was an interesting experiment, but maybe some rethinking is in order.

[oneshooter]

314. In other words you approve of McCarthyism ?

"Organizations have been outlawed. The Real KKK was sued into non-existence.
During the McCarthy era many groups were outlawed."

How very "progressive"of you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Sadena Meti]

337. During WWII pro-Nazi brown shirt organizations were also outlawed.

I was just giving examples.

[iverglas]

404. what you really want for the NRA

is serious campaign finance controls.

It's its ability to interfere in (buy) elections that is the real problem.

We're having an election in Canada tomorrow. There are 308 seats in Parliament (electoral districts, commonly known as ridings), for a population of around 33 million. You'll fall off your chair when you hear what spending is allowed. Third party spending used to be illegal, but that was struck down, unfortunately.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=thi/pla&lang=e

Spending Limits for Election Advertising

A third party must not spend more than the Total expenses limit on election advertising expenses. Of this, it must not spend more than the Expenses limit by electoral district in any electoral district for the promotion or opposition of one or more candidates of that district. A third party is a person or group other than a candidate, a registered party or the electoral district association of a registered party.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=limits/limit_tp&lang=e

Limit on Election Advertising Expenses Incurred by Third Parties

Limit* on election advertising expenses incurred by third parties in effect for the 41st general election
Total expenses limit $188,250
Expenses limit by electoral district $3,765

Multiply that by roughly 9, and you'd have the NRA-ILA (its political wing) limited to spending less than $2 million nationally in the US.

Free speech subject to reasonable restrictions that are justifiable in a democratic society.

[Sadena Meti]

455. You make a good point. I was pointing out that while the NRA wields as much power as it does this..

could never happen.

[Upton]

5. No thanks..

gun registration, outlawing organizations you don't like. Sounds like you'd be right at home in some totalitarian state....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. oh boy! heehee...where is that popcorn and beer smilie?

[-..__...]

7. And this coming from someone ...

posting the following "reading materials" as downloadable PDF files from his website...

The Military Sniper Since 1914.pdf 04-Mar-2009 14:50 21M

US Army - Counter-Sniper Guide.pdf 04-Mar-2009 14:52 3.4M
US Army - Guerilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations.pdf 04-Mar-2009 14:56 11M
US Army - Hand-to-Hand Combat Training.pdf 04-Mar-2009 14:59 4.8M
US Army - Sniper Training.pdf 04-Mar-2009 15:00 3.6M
US Marines - Kill or Get Killed - Colonel Rex Applegate.pdf 04-Mar-2009 15:08 17M
US Navy - Sniper Training.pdf

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/

And some here have the audacity to call "gun nuts" paranoid...

:rofl:

[Sadena Meti]

10. I AM a Gun-Nut myself!

[cleanhippie]

44. Well then, why don't you be the first. Register all of YOUR guns.

[Sadena Meti]

48. I would if I still had them.

[cleanhippie]

52. Then does that mean you are not a "gun" nut, as you described yourself?

[Sadena Meti]

58. I am a gun enthusiant who had all his guns taken from him.

[cleanhippie]

62. Oh, please, do tell why.

:popcorn:

[Sadena Meti]

66. I've mentioned it in other posts. I'm a felon. Hence why I know gun law so well, to get around it.

[cleanhippie]

74. "To get around it"? Does that mean you ARE the gun problem we have?

Perhaps instead of banning everyone that has NOT been committed of a felony from freely owning a gun, you should just follow the law and not "get around it." Seems to me that you are admitting that you are breaking the law, again, no?

[Sadena Meti]

77. Hell yeah I broke the law. And did time for it.

[cleanhippie]

86. And now you are wilfully and knowingly breaking the law again?

[Sadena Meti]

88. No. I said I used to own guns. I don't anymore.

[cleanhippie]

95. You stated the you use your knowledge to "get around it."

What does that mean then?

[Sadena Meti]

98. I studied the guns laws, laughed my ass off, and used the loopholes.

[cleanhippie]

101. Used the loopholes for what?

I'm confused. You state that you are a felon that had his guns confiscated, then used your knowledge of gun law to "get around it" yet do not own any guns. What are you "getting around"?

[Sadena Meti]

107. Short version:

Back in the day, I was a felon already, out and free.

I wanted a pistol.

I tried the legal routes to get my rights back, that failed.

So I studied the gun laws, saw there was nothing to stop me from buying any gun I wanted.

And I purchased 10 firearms over the course of a year.

Eventually I was caught (long story) and did 3 years.

[cleanhippie]

118. Thats not a loophole, thats is simply wilfully breaking the law.

Felons cannot own guns. You knew that. You bought one (10) anyway, KNOWING it was illegal.

By your own admission, you ARE the problem. The solution is for YOU to FOLLOW the law, not to make everyone else curtail their freedoms because you are unable to exercise self-control.

[Sadena Meti]

120. Duh

It gives me a special perspective on the issue that you'll never have.

[cleanhippie]

125. So the solution then would be to LOCK UP repeat criminals, as you have described yourself, forever.

If we put those that willfully break the law repeatedly away forever, THAT would go a very long way to solving the problem, since it is THOSE people who are CAUSING the problem.

[Sadena Meti]

133. Crime is a phenomenon, and prison does nothing.

[cleanhippie]

136. Its a phenomenon because admitted criminals like yourself refuse to follow the law.

You are the problem, not me. I live within the rules we have created for ourselves, you choose not to. That make YOU the problem. The solution is to deal with the problem.

[Sadena Meti]

138. The problem is that I can do whatever I want because the laws are full of so many loopholes.

[cleanhippie]

145. Again, that make YOU the problem. YOU! YOU are the problem.

Not me, not guns, not loopholes, but YOU. YOU are the problem.

[Sadena Meti]

149. If I can do it, anyone can do it. The laws are worthless as they are now. I'm an ex-con telling...

you that the laws need to be tighter.

[cleanhippie]

150. Yes, to keep YOU from breaking them. YOU are the problem, not gun owners.

unbelievable. How can one be so obtuse?

[Sadena Meti]

153. You are the one being obtuse.

All you can think is ad hominem, while ignore the actual issue. I am an example of the problem, although in truth the laws weren't made with me in mind (I'm not saying they don't apply to me, I'm just not who they were thinking off).

[cleanhippie]

158. Dude, there is no ad hominem, as you already admitted that you are a criminal

and continue to use your knowledge to "get around" the law.

I am not calling into question your character, but you have already stated that it is you who is a criminal. YOU are the problem. Criminals are the problem.

[Sadena Meti]

160. No, I said I could get around the law if I wanted to, not that I am. I'm an ex-con. Free and Clear

[cleanhippie]

178. Who cannot legally posess a gun. If you and the rest of the ex-cons keep it that way

there would be very little gun problems at all.

[Sadena Meti]

184. Wrong, because most murders are FIRST OFFENSES!

[cleanhippie]

187. First murders or first offense ever?

Care to cite a source for that claim?

[Sadena Meti]

191. Yes, all the murderers I met in prison. Murderers are actually nice guys.

They kill one person, one time, for one specific reason.

[cleanhippie]

195. *facepalm*

[Sadena Meti]

198. It's true! How many murderers have you met and hung out with?

Ask anyone who has done time.

[Euromutt]

319. Criminological research indicates otherwise

Recommended reading: "The Myth of the 'Virgin Killer'" http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf

[gravity556]

317. You ARE the freaking problem.

Self absorbed idiot who thinks that because his worthless felon self couldn't legally buy a gun, he would try the vaunted "gun show loophole" and buy face to face. Which is still perfectly legal for someone who ISN'T a prohibited posessor (that would be YOU starring as the PP), though it depends on the seller asking and the buyer not being the kind of skin cancer on the asshole of society who would be out looking to illegally buy a gun. You know-a no shit, for realsies, untrustworthy CRIMINAL.

So Captain Anarchy up there is whinging that the gun laws are too lax because he found it possible to either lie to a man's face or was more comfy buying a knowingly stolen gun from some other criminal dick.

So, what was your first felony of record?

[Sadena Meti]

338. My felony was computer hacking. Back on Halloween 1997 I hacked UW Madison's website.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

299. no. You are an ex-con that needs to learn impulse control and

quit breaking the laws that are already in existence. You want the law to keep you legal. You need to learn to keep yourself legal.

This sounds like Minority Report land to me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/
In the future, criminals are caught before the crimes they commit, but one of the officers in the special unit is accused of one such crime and sets out to prove his innocence.

[beevul]

320. You wouldn't be free to "do whatever I want" if you were still locked up, now would you? N/T

[Sadena Meti]

339. I only did 18 months for the guns initially because it was found I had no intention to use them...

in any crime.

[beevul]

356. Thats not an answer to the question you were asked. N/T

[Sadena Meti]

357. It is. I was unable do "do whatever I wanted" for 18 months and 18 months only (there is the...

matter of the second 17 months I served, but that is a separate and long and complicated story.

[beevul]

365. SO you were unable to "get around the laws" while you were locked up.

I think that about says it all, and supports the point that I and others have made.


Thank you.

[rl6214]

330. That's why you ended up in prison again, right?

[Sadena Meti]

340. No, the second time I ended up in detention (not prison) was for suspicion of gun smuggling.

No charges were ever brought, I was held on a material witness warrant.

[X_Digger]

519. If laws didn't stop you.. pass more laws..

Yah, I'm sure you missed the irony of what your statements add up to.

[beevul]

321. Oh?

And here we were all under the impression that prison removes an individual from society, and hence removes that individuals ability to negatively effect society.


Nothing indeed...

[Sadena Meti]

341. Most people in prison are there for victimless crimes (drugs), and crime rates don't go down as...

prison populations go up.

[pipoman]

325. And the answer is

locking up firearms offenders, like you, for the rest of their lives. Very simple. A much better solution than imposing silly, ineffectual laws on all of society to keep the anomaly, like you, from repeatedly breaking existing laws. Even if we only sentenced firearms felons, like you, to say, 30 years without the possibility of parole..that would be awesome.

Oh, and lest anyone reading this forgets, the OP states that he was first a felon (firearms related?). Then after his release he decided to continue on his felonious lifestyle by accumulating 10 firearms illegally. Why 10 firearms? Who knows. My guess is to commit more felonies. This is why I believe we as a society would be better off if the OP were locked away for the rest of his natural life, rather than advocating for removal of civil liberties from those of us who live within the rules of society.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

326. what about after someone has served their time and paid their debt to

society that their rights be restored thereby making it legal for them to again own firearms in the first place. :shrug:

The way society is going now a child can start accruing a record that follows him for the rest of his life.

Also, I have heard of people getting pulled and then let go with no ticket because they have never had a ticket. What is up with that shit?

What I am saying is once you have a record they just want to keep adding to it. Three strikes and your out.

But, someone who has managed to not get a record started somehow manages to never get a record? They get to keep all their strikes when the truth is they should have had a strike also.

The word Felon can mean so many things. A lot of it having nothing whatsoever to do with guns. It seems we want to make people be criminals and then keep them that way. As if the few want to control and manipulate the masses.

Know I am rambling but, it is late at night and I can't sleep. Maybe, I am not making sense.

Just seems to me that the more laws we make the more chances we make for people to be criminals. Backasswards, if you ask me.

[pipoman]

331. Exactly

Just seems to me that the more laws we make the more chances we make for people to be criminals. Backasswards, if you ask me.

The OP is advocating policy which would make perhaps millions of people criminals. All the while talking about how he has complete disregard for the existing laws. Nobody piled charges on him, but him. He chose to be a felon in possession of 10 guns. At that point he forfeited his right to freedom and yes, I would be fine with him remaining locked up until he is no longer a threat to society. Would you want the OP living next door to your family?

[Sadena Meti]

342. As I stated I was a felon for being a computer hacker, and a decade passed before I purchased the...

guns, first for self defense (someone broke into my apartment while I was still in it), and then more for enjoyment.

[one-eyed fat man]

388. There is a cure for career criminals

I can see why you stay in Wisconsin. No matter what crime you commit there, the state will never take the final solution to your criminal proclivities....retroactive abortion.

[rl6214]

122. So you were a criminal doing criminal things

You just can't stop that. If criminals want to commit crimes, they are going to do it.

[Sadena Meti]

134. If they can't get guns because of 100% checks and 100% registration, their "tools" will be reduced.

[cleanhippie]

147. You already stated that you "know how to get around" current law. How would that change?

Its YOU that are the problem. Not gun owners, not guns, not loopholes, but YOU! YOU are the problem.

[Sadena Meti]

151. If my ideas were put into law, the only way for me to get a gun would be to steal one, which would

require a breaking and entering and getting past a gun safe.

I wouldn't be able to buy them at gun shows.

I wouldn't be able to buy them from private sellers.

I wouldn't be able to get someone to buy it for me.

The loopholes would be closed.

[cleanhippie]

154. Correct, and you want to curtail the rights of EVERY law abiding citizen because YOU cannot

control yourself. It is YOU who are the problem.

[Sadena Meti]

157. Again with the ad hominem

Registering your weapon is not a restriction of a right. You really are paranoid about this, aren't you?

[cleanhippie]

162. It is not an ad hemeinem to point out what you yourself have admittted to.

[Sadena Meti]

164. Ad Hominem. Learn to spell. See, that's an ad hominem! But seriously, to attack the person and...

not the subject is what ad hominem is all about. "You're a felon, you're a felon, you're a felon!"

I don't hide it.

[cleanhippie]

176. I am not attacking you. I am attacking your ideas and proposals

and using you as an example of why those ideas are ludicrous.

[Sadena Meti]

185. My being a felon makes my arguments STRONGER.

[cleanhippie]

190. You keep telling yourself that.

[PavePusher]

228. Obviously, he's a "True Believer".

You can't get much more authoritatively reliable than that... right?

[cleanhippie]

241. Wow, this has been something else.

But at least he is exposed for what he is in this one thread and we don't have to deal with the nonsense over time trying to pin him down on his contradictions and authoritarianism. I give him credit for being open and honest about it.

[Katya Mullethov]

295. Wanna buy a Tokarev with no paper ?

I already reported it stolen to the fucking Einsteins at Central Planning last week , but you probly figured as much .

So how 'bout it comrade ? I'll trade you straight up for a book of vodka ration coupons .

What I really want is just a fantasy , but a gallon of gasolene and a new pair of spark plugs for the Trabant would be GREAT ! If you can actually come up with some wiper blades as well , I'll throw in some ammo . But that would be a real trick .

[jeepnstein]

397. No it doesn't

You're just another convict looking to hustle your way into something. Owning a firearm is my civil right. I don't want some jailhouse lawyer trying to negotiate my right away for me.

[SteveW]

554. "100%." Such faith in bureaucracy and hierarchy. nt

[rl6214]

90. Thank you for your honest answer.

You know how to get around gun law but you also MUST know that criminals DON'T FOLLOW GUN LAWS.

None of the things you have proposed will stop this.

[Sadena Meti]

94. My proposals would end cash and cary and shill straw buys. That's how guns reach the streets.

[cleanhippie]

97. So you want to end the freedom for a person to buy and sell private property?

[Sadena Meti]

100. You can buy and sell guns all you like, you just have to fill out a form, like buying a car!

[cleanhippie]

106. I do not need to "fill out a form" to buy a car.

Do you need to "fill out a form" to buy or sell anything from craigslist, ebay, the classifieds? Nope.

[Sadena Meti]

108. You have to RE-TITLE it!

[cleanhippie]

111. ONLY if I want to drive it on a public road.

I can own an entire FLEET of cars and never register a single one of them if I so choose.

[Sadena Meti]

114. And how many people do that. The fringe will always slip through.

[cleanhippie]

121. Thats the third or fourth time you have used that line in order to deflect from the point.

The only "fringe" slipping through is YOU, by your own admission.

[Sadena Meti]

135. What I am indicating is that the law will not reach 100% in one generation.

[cleanhippie]

152. What you have indicated is that criminals such as yourself will CONTINUE to break the law

no matter WHAT the law is. The problem is YOU.

[Sadena Meti]

155. No what I have indicated is that die hard gun owners will hide their guns rather than register them

because of their paranoia. As I said in my previous post, if my ideas were put into law, I wouldn't be able to get a gun. As it stands, I could have an arsenal within a month.

[cleanhippie]

179. Paranoia? You are openly advocating for doing exactly what you are calling people

out for being paranoid about.



You are no longer making logical arguments.

[Sadena Meti]

186. Which is what exactly?

[cleanhippie]

188. Exactly.

[Sadena Meti]

193. I am openly advocating for doing what? You aren't making any sense, just making quips.

[rl6214]

332. And this is exactly why people own guns

because people like you do not follow any laws and are the problem in todays society.

[Sadena Meti]

343. My crimes never had a victim.

[beevul]

373. I imagine the university you hacked into would disagree.

Not terribly different than felony tresspass.


So, you neither respect the property - virtual or otherwise, of others, nor do you respect the rule of law when it comes to that property, and where guns are concerned for that matter...


And you expect millions of people to change, or have change put upon them, so it makes it harder for people like you to do the things you did.


No sir.

No way.

No how.

[rl6214]

104. You just can't stop every "cash and carry" (personal) firearm sale

It just can't be done, just like straw purchases can't be stopped.

Just can't be done.

[Sadena Meti]

110. You can make the original buyer accountable.

He gives the gun to his friend, his friend gets caught with it, and the buyer is nabbed from the records.

[rl6214]

69. And why were they all taken if I may ask?

[Sadena Meti]

71. Post 66

[rrneck]

8. Do you really think it's possible

to regulate interpersonal relationships and what people carry in their pockets? That much government oversight could be better put to use giving average people an even break instead of disarming them.

[Sadena Meti]

14. This isn't about disarming them, it's about holding them accountable.

[rrneck]

18. Accountable for what? nt

[Sadena Meti]

21. Accountable for securing their firearms and accountable for what is done with them, even by others.

[rrneck]

30. What exculpatory evidence would you allow? nt

[Sadena Meti]

THe children would have had to have used extreme measures to overcome the gun vault, safe, etc.

[rrneck]

73. Ah.

And how would you know the parents didn't exercise those measures to avoid prosecution? And while you're at it, figure out how it will work for every other kind of interpersonal relationship as well. What about shared guns, loaned guns and guns lost without the owners knowledge or simple loss? How do you plan to regulate storage equipment, temporary transfers, owner death or incapacitation, owner relocation, immigrant status or acts of nature?

For someone with an anarchist symbol in his sign you sure advocate a lot of top down control. Are you sure you know what it means?

[Sadena Meti]

80. I am proposing solutions for this country in this situation, not in the ideal state I would live in.

[rrneck]

93. So you got nothin'. Alrighty then. nt

[beevul]

271. Oh surrrre it isn't...

Rest assured some asshole would take your ball and run with it until it was.


Be happy to provide numerous examples, should you be so uninformed as to need them.

[Sadena Meti]

11. Oh, and as an example, parents will be held responsible for their childrens' shooting sprees

For not securing the guns.

[Sadena Meti]

12. 100% registration is not as hard as you think, we already have it...

for automobiles. Every car has a title. Every sale transfers the title. Every car is registered, annually. The car must be tested (emissions analogy to ballistics).

[rl6214]

23. No, every car is not registered every year

Only if driven on the road. I have an off-road only Toyota landcruiser. Hasn't been registered in years, also does not have to be emissions tested since it is over 25 years old.

[Sadena Meti]

25. A fringe will always slip through.

[rl6214]

42. Again with your fringe

Again, I know personally a couple of dozen people that have off-road only vehicles. We trailer them where we want to go, never driving them on the road and only drive them on off-road trails. Not quite so much of a fringe.

[Sadena Meti]

43. And what percentage of the automobiles in this country are used for on road vs off road traffic.

[rl6214]

63. i don't have any idea

But they are out there. Always will be.

Shit, automobile insurance is mandatory but I KNOW there are lots of people out there running around without insurance.

[Drale]

15. I ain't want da gob'ment to now bout ma guns cause they gonna take um away!!!

I don't disagree with you but I think you just opened up a bad that you would have rather left closed. Take my advice you are about to get flamed by the pro-gun crowd, ignore it. If you let if effect you they win. :popcorn:

[Sadena Meti]

17. Except I am pro-gun, I used to own 10!

[Drale]

19. Yes but your obviously not against regulation

like so many pro-gunners seem to be.

[Sadena Meti]

24. That's the whole point of this thread.

[rl6214]

26. Are you always to juvenile and bigoted in your posts?

Not all gun owners are hicks. It costs a LOT of money to be in the target shooting and hunting sport.

[Sadena Meti]

33. As I said, I was a gun owner, and a happy one at that. I was a shooting ethusiast. Every Saturday.

[Drale]

37. O I know how much it costs

but it seems that ever single gun owner who's against regulation has the same argument. That the government is going to take all their guns away. And I highly doubt that will ever happen, because if they tried all the people they had not gotten to yet would stand against them.

[rrneck]

39. Uh

why is income a a determining factor?

[rl6214]

55. It's not

I could have stated it better but I shoot with doctors, nurses, lawyers, welders, a pharmacist any people from all walks of life. The way post 15 was stated was as if only hicks owned guns.

[cleanhippie]

31. Well, isn't that just special.

[Logical]

38. OK, you sounded fairly reasonable until.......

"If your gun is used in a crime, and it is still registered to you, and you haven't previously reported it lost or stolen, YOU are held responsible for the crime. Accessory to Murder."

That might be one of the dumbest things I have even seen posted.

I stopped reading there.

[Sadena Meti]

46. Makes perfect sense to me.

""If your gun is used in a crime, and it is still registered to you, and you haven't previously reported it lost or stolen, YOU are held responsible for the crime. Accessory to Murder."

That might be one of the dumbest things I have even seen posted. "

If your son, little Billy, take your arsenal to school and massacres a dozen people, you are responsible for not securing the firearms.

[Logical]

54. We all know you are just trying to cause a scene. No one can really mean that. nice try. n-t

[Sadena Meti]

61. Actually I've been in favor of 100% registration for 5 years, back when I first started owning guns.

[Logical]

68. The stolen gun part is insane. Probably unenforceable. Maybe unconstitutional.

[Sadena Meti]

72. If your gun is stolen report it stolen. How hard is that?

[Logical]

75. I agree, but charging the person with crimes committed with it? insane.

[Sadena Meti]

87. It closes a loophole and introduces accountability. Buy a gun safe.

They have fingerprint ones that open like lightning!

[cleanhippie]

216. So by your logic, if I have my gun in a safe and it gets stolen, I am not responsible, right?

[Sadena Meti]

221. If you don't report it stolen within a reasonable period of time. Can't you keep track of your guns

[cleanhippie]

224. Look at those goalposts move! Whats reasonable?

I called the police when I discovered the theft. Now its reported stolen.


Tall me again how registering my gun prevents any of this from happening?

[Sadena Meti]

230. Because you registered, and they know the gun was stolen, they have a second crime scene of evidence

How does registering your car when driving on public roads prevent you from getting tickets.

[cleanhippie]

236. They know it was stolen when I reported it.

Again, how does registration prevent the theft of my gun?

[Sadena Meti]

242. It doesn't prevent the theft, but it aids in the investigation subsequent crimes commited....

with your gun based on ballistic evidence.

Actually, the new law would help stop your gun from being stolen, because it would encourage you to buy a gun safe.

[cleanhippie]

247. As stated, it WAS in a safe when you stole it.

More of that reading comprehension problem, I guess.

[Sadena Meti]

250. So the law worked, you got the safe, and now ballistics can trace the gun to the crime.

[rrneck]

256. So I have a gun in a safe.

I remove the gun from the safe and sell it. Then I damage the safe to fake the break on. How do you prove it wasn't stolen?

And you still haven't solved the problem of regulating shared access.

[Sadena Meti]

263. And how many times do you think you could do this before the police got suspicious?

Shill / Straw buyers buy 10 guns a month. You're going to fake that many break-ins? Even after the first one, you report the theft, you remain a witness in the case, your name doesn't vanish. Try doing it a second time and they'll be on to you.


Shared access is a rare thing, and a legally complicated thing. For example, there were these 5 felons in an apartment. They didn't all live there. The apartment was raided for drugs and a pistol was found. All 5 felons got full charges for the gun, 10 years.

I see no problem with my plans if a gun were to be registered to more than one person, husband and wife for example.

[rrneck]

269. Once is enough.

Another juvenile dodge. You can't get that bullshit past the people in this forum, much less the voting public at large.

[Sadena Meti]

272. My example stands perfectly on it's own. Registration ends shill / straw buying. It works perfectly.

You keep saying my arguments are bad without dissecting them. Doesn't take brains to do that. Point out the flaws. Instead of saying "nice dodge."

[rrneck]

276. Sheeeeiit.

Perfectly?

You have not answered:

Disparity of force.
Shared firearms.
Loaned firearms.
Proving theft.
Attaching accountability.
Regulating interpersonal relationships.

You were busted fifty posts ago. We've just been playing with you. And anybody reading this will know it.

:rofl:

[Sadena Meti]

277. I addressed most of those actually, maybe you need to read.

[rrneck]

279. Ahahahahaha.

That bullshit only works if people can't remember what you say.

Why don't you sum up now and see if you can get your story straight.

[Sadena Meti]

286. List your questions, in question form, and I shall answer them.

[rrneck]

288. LOL!

What is this, Jeopardy?

I'll take "juvenile evasion" for five hundred, Alex.

They've been asked. Put up or shut up.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

296. These threads are fun to read as a narrative.

You've gone from authoritative statements to "Huh? Whadido?"

Comedy gold.

[slackmaster]

398. I'd like to see the thread tree translated into a player piano roll

:rofl:

[iverglas]

471. I like it

An old one that most have probably not seen:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=858649&mesg_id=858649

Ah, the good old days when the slackmaster and i played board games. ;)



C'mon, click. I dare you!

[iverglas]

522. c'mon, you people; CLICK

Sheesh, afraid?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=858649&mesg_id=858649

It's FUNNY.

Don't read the individual posts -- just the subject lines in the thread.

Even be good for a rousing round of silliness hereabouts on some rainy afternoon.

[YllwFvr]

302. ballistic evidence is pretty unreliable nt

[GreenStormCloud]

60. You seem to have a problem with the first amendment.

Give the government the authority to outlaw the NRA and they will eventually outlaw the Democratic Party. Even the KKK, Nazis, Communists, and various unsavory religions can't be outlawed. It never ceases to amaze me to see how quickly an anti-gun person will throw away the Constitution if they think it will get rid of guns.

[rrneck]

81. Looks like weve got

a kid a crank or a false flag here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

310. Big election next year. A perfect time to McGovernize the Democrats

[Logical]

65. I have no problem registering my guns with the government and also....

have no issue with a law requiring guns be reported stolen.

The stolen gun stuff you said is insane. I can see being charged with a crime called "not reporting a gun stolen" but not the crime the person commits with your gun.

[Sadena Meti]

76. Accountability

A party to a crime now a days can just say "oh, that gun was stolen, that's why I don't have it (threw it in the river)."

This closes that loophole. Charge as an accessory. You failed to secure your firearm, and you failed to report it stolen.

[rl6214]

84. How can you be for registering your guns?

That goes against everything the Constitution and Bill of Rights stands for. Our right to own a gun is given to us in the 2nd amendment. It does NOT give the govenrment any rights. Registration will just give people like this guy (OP) the ability to take our guns at a later time. There are more people out there like this than you might think. Just look at some of the comments by people like Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Carolyn Mccarthy, Joe Biden, Chuck Shumer and many others on the anti-gun side.

[Sadena Meti]

91. The "They're going to take our guns" is paranoid rambling. Once the law was passed you think...

everyone would just lay down and take it?

[rl6214]

113. You are contradicting yourself

You want to pass laws to limit gun ownership. California has already banned many guns (their definition of assault weapons). Do you think those people have turned them all in? They started with registration then moved on to banning.

[Sadena Meti]

115. I want to pass a law to DOCUMENT gun ownership and add RESPONSIBILITY to gun ownership...

and in the end ACCOUNTABILITY

[cleanhippie]

140. Where is YOUR acountability? You admit to "getting around" the law. YOU are the problem.

Where is YOUR accountability?

[Sadena Meti]

142. I was held accountable. I did time.

[cleanhippie]

144. Yet by your own admission, you continue to willfully break the law.

Where is YOUR accountability?

[Sadena Meti]

146. Where did I say I am continuing to break the law? I'm not. I'm a free man doing free things.

I may have said that law prevents me from doing nothing.

[cleanhippie]

148. Uh, right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=408879&mesg_id=408967



You have contradicted yourself so many times now, I'm beginning to see that you are simply playing troll games.



Have a nice day.

[Sadena Meti]

159. No, all I said is I know how to get around the law, not that I'm doing it. I could but why bother.

[PavePusher]

165. So, by your own admission, you were caught and "held accountable" under our current laws.

So, why do we need more laws again?

[Sadena Meti]

166. Because I was caught by chance. Like a random stop and search. That's not gun control that's luck.

[PavePusher]

169. And your proposals will be more methodical because... why?

Unless there is a nation-wide annual inventory, where the government comes and inspects your guns and compares them to their lists, you are depending on random chance, and actual police work, to catch criminal, just like... now.

I'm curious also as to what you mean by "random stop and search". The police have to have RAS or PC to stop and search. If it was truely "random", you'd have a good 4th Amendment violation suit.

[Sadena Meti]

171. As I just said in another post, with a national ownership registry and ballistics sample...

there would be no way to get away with gun crime.

In addition to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people like me.

[PavePusher]

202. You keep making this claim, but you haven't explained the mechanism that you think will make it work

Also, please cite to where registration and ballistic samples at point-of-sale have been proven to be effective in investigating and solving crimes.

One hint: If I buy a gun from a shop, and they keep a sample case and fired bullet, I simply make a trip to the range, fire 200-400 rounds (a low break-in count and average range session for me) and the "ballistic sample" will no longer match.

Even easier, a set of jewelers files and a few minutes work.

You either haven't thought this through, or you really don't know what you are talking about.

[Sadena Meti]

208. It would still catch the majority. Also, most states don't do the ballistic sample.

[PavePusher]

210. "It would catch the majority".

Cite to evidence, please.

Also, please cite to the success record in those states that do enact it.

[Sadena Meti]

215. Fallacy: Drown with Evidence

I am not going to spend the hours to find the total number of cases nation wide that were solved by ballistic matching. I doubt it could be determined.

Nor the impossibly statistics of how many recovered bullets showed signs that the barrel had been tampered with (almost none). That is almost impossible detail to uncover.

And to compare the states that do have the sampling, one would have to compare their murder rates, then compare the relative cases solved with ballistic samples. This could be done, but would take days.

[cleanhippie]

217. hahahahahahaha!

:rofl:

[rrneck]

222. There is a difference

between cover and concealment.

[PavePusher]

227. Yeah, that's what I thought.

If you are going to make claims without evidence, you are in the wrong place.

Good luck with that.

P.S. If your ideas worked so well, people would be throwing those stats in everyones faces. Hint: there's a reason they don't do that throwing....

[Euromutt]

316. "This could be done, but would take days." Actually, it wouldn't.

There are only two state-level "ballistic fingerprinting" databases: Maryland's Integrated Ballistic Identification System (MD-IBIS) and New York's Combined Ballistic Identification System (CoBIS). Neither has produced a single criminal conviction.

MD-IBIS wrongly received credit for the conviction in 2005 of Robert Garner for the murder of Kelvin Braxton the previous year, but court transcripts show that IBIS was not used to identify the gun used; rather, Garner was already a suspect on the basis of witness testimony, and only a manual comparison was made of cases recovered at the crime scene to a stored case from a handgun (straw-)purchased by Garner's then-girlfriend three weeks prior to the shooting. So Maryland's policy of keeping a cartridge case from each handgun sold provided an assist, but IBIS did not, since regular investigative methods led police to the firearm tested.

Ballistics works when you have a specific gun that you suspect was used in a crime and you want to link it to the crime scene, but it's useless for finding which gun was used. The ballistic imprint changes with wear on the gun, and guns of the same model have markings that are too similar.

[X_Digger]

521. Ballistics sample? *snort*

A ballistic fingerprint isn't like a human fingerprint that doesn't change over time.

Normal use changes a ballistic fingerprint.

Changing a barrel changes the fingerprint.

Or are you also going to make barrels 'firearms' and require they be registered, too? *snort*

Authoritarian claptrap with a dose of derp.

[beevul]

274. Ignorance is no virtue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361131

[rrneck]

282. But it appears to be an intetesting hobby. nt

[beevul]

291. Touche.

Not only interesting, but common, amongst groups such as the batty campaign and those that support it.

[Logical]

116. The government will never be able to take our guns.....

The 2nd does not guarantee you a right to have a non-registered gun. That is debatable. Even Scalia said "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I think having guns registered is a good idea. Helps track them in crime use and might help stopping criminals from getting them. And at least lets us find out how criminals get them.

The government knows at this point that even suggesting that they will take back 300 million guns would be a major issue and impossible.

[Sadena Meti]

137. Wow, a rational response.

[YllwFvr]

303. the registry in canada has worked well

see if you get where im going

[LAGC]

309. Whoops, you beat me to it. (n/t)

[LAGC]

308. How well did gun registration work out for Canada?

Millions of dollars pissed down the tube in cost over-runs, and it was still largely a failure. Massive non-compliance.

Now they're thinking of rolling back the law.

If Canada can't even make it work, what makes you think the U.S. can?

[Logical]

322. I doubt it. Canada does everything better than us. n-t

[Sadena Meti]

344. Even if we only started this with new guns and gun sales, it would be a start.

[iverglas]

403. excellently, thank you for asking

Now they're thinking of rolling back the law.




Of course, you know who the "they" are who want to do this. Not Canadians.




The foul vicious rotten right-wing assholes who have held power for the last few years by a fluke of our first-past-the-post multi-party parliamentary system, that's who ... whom we are fixing to throw out on their ears after we spit in their faces at the polls tomorrow. ;)

It's way too close to call right now, of course, and the way the vote splits could still return a Conservative government, again with something like 35% of the popular vote -- i.e. with 65% of the voting electorate voting against it and its rotten right-wing agenda, and for the other parties, every one of which supports the firearms registry.

But hey, you choose your bedfellows, and I'll choose mine!

[cleanhippie]

139. What is even MORE bizarre is the fact that the OP is an admitted felon who circumvents the law

This guy wants all guns registered so that when HE steals one, the owner is responsible.

[Sadena Meti]

141. Why steal a gun when I can just buy one? The laws are that flawed.

At least I know what I'm talking about. You can only guess how criminals get weapons, how the black market works. I actually know.

[cleanhippie]

143. So how is registering MY guns going to keep YOU from breaking the law?

Where is YOUR accountability?

[Sadena Meti]

161. IF your gun is registered and secured, then it's out of my hands.

[cleanhippie]

175. My gun is currently out of your hands. How would registering it prevent you from getting it?

You are not really making logical arguments anymore.

[Sadena Meti]

177. Registering it means you won't give it to me because you'd be held accountable. Also if YOU did...

something with it, they'd have you dead to rights.

[cleanhippie]

182. I am already not going to give it to you, nor am I going to use it for criminal activity.

So tell me again why I need to register it?

[Sadena Meti]

189. For the same reason you need to register your car.

Except in this case it costs you nothing, and you can go home knowing that you are part of the solution.

[cleanhippie]

192. Uh, I don't HAVE to register my car, its not required if I choose not to drive it on public roads.

How many times do we have to discuss this false analogy?

[Sadena Meti]

196. And what percentage of cars are driven on public roads. 99% sounds nice.

I can only find numbers for the UK. But the number is pretty damn high. As I will say for the fourth time, there will always be a fringe that slips through, but with every generation it will become less.

[cleanhippie]

199. Your use of circular logic is not only horriby flawed

its repetitive and boring.

Good luck with your efforts.

[Sadena Meti]

209. Show me where my logic is unsound, incomplete, and fallicious. If you know what those things mean.

[cleanhippie]

214. Start with this post right here.

Then continue reading.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=408879&mesg_id=408879


QED

[Sadena Meti]

219. You really don't know how to argue or debate, do you?

[cleanhippie]

223. Ahh, the insult. The last gasp of the one who loses the argument.

:hi:

[Sadena Meti]

231. No, it's a statement of fact. You don't know how to debate.

[cleanhippie]

234. You are free to tell yourself whatever you need to.

It couldn't POSSIBLY be the incoherent, circular, contradictory and authoritarian "arguments" that you have presented. No, no way it is any of that.















:sarcasm:

[Sadena Meti]

237. You don't present counter-arguments, you just repeat either "you're a felon" or "Why should I...

register?" Even though I've given half a dozen reasons, one for each time you ask.

[cleanhippie]

238. It would seem that you have a reading comprehension disability,

But it doesn't matter, as you are attempting to turn this into something about ME, and deflect away from your incoherent, circular, contradictory and authoritarian "arguments" that you have presented.

Nice try, but no cigar.



I'm done with you.

[Sadena Meti]

243. I am mearly stating facts, while you avoid engaging facts, ideas, concepts.

[cleanhippie]

246. Hahaha! You have not stated a SINGLE fact.

In fact, when asked to cite evidence to support your "facts" you refuse to do so. Repeatedly.


I'm out. This is boring.

[Sadena Meti]

248. No, you tried to Drown with Evidence once, asking for the unabtainable. And I presented plenty of..

facts about how current gun law doesn't work.

[cleanhippie]

306. Like I said, you keep telling yourself that.

You are already doing a great of of convincing yourself, so keep up the good work!

[YllwFvr]

304. i cant say for the public at large

but I can say I know many people who own far more cars off road unregistered and uninsured than road legal ones. I myself only have one on road and one off.

[Oneka]

442. please

refer to post #78, were dealing with a misguided statist here, not someone interested in seeing gun violence going away.
Some would call this kind of person a "useful idiot"

[DWC]

83. "Revolutionary Anarchist & Scientific Socialist

Utopian Communist & Utilitarian Populist". Any further to the left and the original poster will fall off the edge of the political world.

Semper Fi,

[Sadena Meti]

103. That's about correct. They don't come lefter than me at heart, except maybe Anarcho-Primitivists.

[rrneck]

206. We need to register access ti Wikipedia. nt

[rrneck]

109. Well, well, well

Looks like Cletus from over at Bubba's Guns 'n Coin Open Laundry has dropped in to "stir up them Commie libruls ".

:rofl:

[rl6214]

124. yeah, I'm done here.

[cleanhippie]

126. Yup. A real winner.

Methinks what we really have here is a sockpuppet.....

[Sadena Meti]

119. Have to take a 1 hour break, then I'll be back to argue some more.

[cleanhippie]

127. I agree. Lets start with the internet. You need to register and fully disclose your true identity

before being allowed to post anything online. Agreed? Its for the children.

[Sadena Meti]

163. Anyone with basic knowledge of the internet can figure out who I am. I don't hide. Try.

[PavePusher]

167. But we'll be so much safer and more responsible with a government list and oversight.

That's what you keep claiming, right?

[Sadena Meti]

170. I'm saying with my ideas a gun could be used in a crime a traced to its owner in the same day.

And gun safes and lock boxes sales would go through the roof.

[cleanhippie]

183. Did the owner commit the crime?

Was the owner a legal owner or a criminal?

[Sadena Meti]

200. The legal owner will now have to account for the gun. Gunpowder residue, fingerprints, etc.

[cleanhippie]

205. So if YOU break into my home, defeat my safe and steal my gun then commit a crime

with it, I am responsible? :wtf:

[Sadena Meti]

211. No in those cases there would be mitigating circumstances, as is true with any crime.

[cleanhippie]

213. So why does my gun need to be registered?

[Sadena Meti]

218. So that the database is complete and it is known your hand was NOT used in a crime.

Say the gun is known to be a Glock 9mm, and 5 people are known to own one in the building. A quick scan of the bullet, run against a computer database, and the culprit is known. Otherwise, all 5 are suspects.

[cleanhippie]

220. We ALREADY knew I had no hand in it

when I reported a burglary at my home.


If my gun is IN my safe, I know it was not used in a crime. If it gets stolen, I report the theft.


Again, why does my gun need to be registered?

[PavePusher]

194. Guns can be traced in mere hours right now.

You still don't seem to have a valid point.

[Sadena Meti]

201. WRONG. They can be trace only to the original point of sale.

[PavePusher]

204. Wrong.

Basic police foot-work. Contact listed buyer, "do you still own gun X". Follow trail as required.

This is done all the time.

[Sadena Meti]

212. A liar says I sold it some guy I can't remember or I lost it (threw it in the river).

[PavePusher]

226. And this will change?

Criminals will still do that.

[Sadena Meti]

232. No because under my scheme he can not sell without a dealer, so there would be a record, and if he..

lost it he would have been required to report it. Thus he is under high suspicion because one of his excuses is impossible and the other is a violation.

[PavePusher]

240. "he can not sell without a dealer"

Hahaha, hahahahaha, hahahahaha.....whew....

Please cite the successes of any sort of prohibition, which is what you are advocating.

Need I remind you that a lot of alcohol got sold in the '20's and '30's despite laws to the contrary, and drugs in the current era.

[Sadena Meti]

244. If you sold outside of a dealer, the gun would still be in your name, and you would be held...

accountable for the crimes committed, such as accessory for murder.

[AC_Mem]

172. good luck Sadena!

And welcome to DU. I'm sure you are going to get lottttssss of responses on this one.

:/


Annette

[Sadena Meti]

174. It's sure getting my post total up! Time for a lunch break.

[Smokewagon]

180. I see where the OP is coming from

As a convicted felon, I can understand his support for gun control. It's makes his work less hazardous.

[cleanhippie]

197. !

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

181. It seems that increasing your post count was the whole point.

Too bad you sacrificed your credibility to get it.

[Sadena Meti]

203. As I said before, I first came up with this Registration / Accountability scheme back in 2006 when..

I started buying guns.

[cleanhippie]

207. Well, I agree that it is a scheme.

[Sadena Meti]

225. Taking my Network down, I'll be up in an hour or so.

[spin]

229. Gun registration in Canada has been less than a success ...

and Canadians do not have our cultural love of firearms.

Amnesty extended (2 yrs) for unregistration
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 at 22:49

OTTAWA - On the eve on an election campaign the Conservative government has quietly extended an amnesty for long-gun owners who have not complied with the gun registry.

***snip***

It is the fifth time that the Conservatives have given licensed owners of unregistered long-guns an amnesty, meaning they will not face criminal charges for not registering their weapons. Licences for gun owners are still required.

***snip***

While past extensions have been for one year, this current extension is for two years and will expire on May 16, 2013.
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=7749

O Canada

It's bad enough they missed their target estimate a thousandfold. Passed in 1995 with a projected cost of $2 million, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the gun registry program has now passed the $2 billion mark, with no end in sight. There's also no end to the violent crime the registry promised to reduce, or the calls for more "gun control" by opportunistic politicians.

Canada's Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association estimates noncompliance with the gun registry at 70 percent overall, including handgun and long-gun registration, and citizens not obtaining required licenses. But rather than admit complicity in a boondoggle, those who pledged improved public safety have instead adopted a policy of dancing in blood, blaming guns, and pointing fingers at the US.emphasis added
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_5_52/ai_n26798619/

[Sadena Meti]

235. Mind the source

"Canada's Law-Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association"

ie. an organization against the law who wants the best statistics to disprove it

"estimates noncompliance with the gun registry at 70 percent overall, including handgun and long-gun registration, and citizens not obtaining required licenses."

Even if this was true, that's 30% in 15 years. I said this would take a generation.


Also they didn't implement my idea of requiring presenting a license for a firearm before buying ammunition.

[spin]

251. The real problem with your idea is it is politically impossible in the United States ...

and would be effectively suicide to the party that attempted to push it through Congress.

Some states require registration but others like Florida forbid it.

The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

[Sadena Meti]

255. I never said it was possible, I just said it was the solution.

[spin]

260. In that case I feel a waving a magic wand that would make all guns disappear ...

is also a solution.

[Sadena Meti]

264. My solution COULD happen. It probably won't, but it is sound.

[spin]

275. Looking at the Canadian experience ...

it's far from sound. If it doesn't work in Canada, there is NO chance that it will work in the United States. I know that you feel that the registration rate in Canada is acceptable as you are looking for a long term solution. The problem is that all the easy registrations have been accomplished and the people who have not registered their firearms for the last fifteen years are unlikely to in the next fifteen.

Of course criminals do not have to register their firearms as you probably know.

The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration
by Clayton Cramer

In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. <1> His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." <2> The Court concluded:

We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. <3>

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. emphasis added
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

[Sadena Meti]

265. duplicate post

[iverglas]

532. just a sligiht correction

Also they didn't implement my idea of requiring presenting a license for a firearm before buying ammunition.

Yup, we did. A decade or so ago.

This was done after a group of teenagers broke into a home in the national capital and stole a long gun, then drove to Canadian Tire and stocked up on ammunition, and drove around downtown shooting at things. And people. They killed a man named Nicholas Battersby, a young engineer from the UK working in Canada temporarily, out for a noon hour stroll on the main shopping street in Ottawa on a sunny day.

A firearms licence is now required to buy ammunition. Can't stress enough what a necessary thing this is.

[iverglas]

530. a lie can travel halfway around the world ...

... while the truth is still tying its shoelaces. -- Mark Twain

Passed in 1995 with a projected cost of $2 million, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports the gun registry program has now passed the $2 billion mark, with no end in sight.

I provided the conclusive demonstration that the "$2 billion" meme is a lie some time ago, in this very forum. I'm very disappointed to see it still being bruited about here as if it were truth.

In July 2009:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=235208&mesg_id=235215

And reiterated in August 2009:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=250000&mesg_id=250479

Now, any particular poster in this forum may not have seen those truths.

But a lot of others did.

Wouldn't it be nice if those who have seen the truth actually rebutted the lie when it is posted here by some perfectly innocent and unwitting dupe of the right-wing liar Gary Breitkreuz, MP and his lie?

Of course, I've been explaining Mr Breitkreuz and his politics to you folks for a loooong time.

In March 2004:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=43906&mesg_id=44196

Quoting Gary Breitkreutz around here (any use of the "$2 billion" meme is a quotation of Gary Breitkreutz) is indistinguishable from quoting Rush Limbaugh.

So hey, how 'bout we all stop doing it?

[iverglas]

531. and as if Breitkreutz weren't enough

The 2006 article in which his lie is cited as truth is by an individual named David Codrea. This is one of Mr Codrea's projects:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

Sipsey Street Irregulars
The gathering place for a merry band of Three Percenters. (As denounced by Bill Clinton on CNN!)

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

Now you see, I link to such nasty places on the net only to show their nastiness. That's just a tiny tiny bit of the nastiness there, and I'm truly sorry to link to / quote it here at Democratic Underground, but it's just necessary.

Codrea was quoted as some sort of authority and/or as a person whose ideas were approved.

In fact, the particular nonsense for which he was specifically quoted -- 70% non-compliance with the firearms registry in Canada -- is just another lie.

This is a cautionary tale about not believing everything one sees on the internet.

Check your sources. Check their "facts". Respect for one's interlocutors demands it.

[beevul]

533. I just checked your link.

That seems to be run by someone named vanderbough, and not by someone named codrea.

"Check your sources. Check their "facts". Respect for one's interlocutors demands it"

Looks like you didn't do any of the checking that you suggested to others, in this case.


"This is a cautionary tale about not believing everything one sees on the internet."

Complete with a fresh example. :rofl:

[iverglas]

534. oh, sigh

Did you try the simple technique of googling David Codrea?

(I always love it when somebody quotes some right-wing asshole in the US at me on matters Canadian.)

http://www.blogger.com/profile/13836716551269849012

My Blogs
The War on Guns

Blogs I Follow
Gun Rights Examiner
Sipsey Street Irregulars

Yeah, you're right, maybe I clicked there too fast without paying attention.

But you see, I'd already seen this in my David Codrea search results:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/05/david-codrea-and-i-make-romanian-papers.html

David Codrea and I make the Romanian papers.

So I just kinda ... assumed ... a close connection.


site:sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com david codrea
About 5,020 results (many duplicate, obviously)


Happier now?

[slackmaster]

249. One simple question for Sadena Meti before I attempt to formulate an opinion...

What problem are you trying to solve?

You've presented a proposed solution, but haven't stated what the problem is.

[Sadena Meti]

252. The ease of criminals to get firearms, and the difficulty of doing a ballistic trace with 300m guns.

Also adding Responsibility and Accountability to gun ownership.

[spin]

258. If there was a market, guns would be smuggled into the U.S.

Mexican drug gangs have no problems smuggling military grade firearms into their nation and they could easily supply a market in the states if it existed. If you can smuggle tons and tons of marijuana into our country, handgun smuggling would be simple.

[Sadena Meti]

262. The supply and demand go the other way.

The guns FROM the US are smuggled TO Mexico, because they are so much easier to get in the US.

[spin]

285. Some guns from the U.S are smuggled to Mexico, but the majoirty of weapons ...

in the hands of the drug smugglers do not come from American gun stores.

U.S. Embassy Cables: 90 Percent of Mexican Drug Cartels' Most Lethal Weapons Come From Central America--Not USA
Friday, April 01, 2011

(CNSNews.com) -- The most lethal weapons used by drug cartels in Mexico are smuggled from Central America, not from the United States, according to U.S. Embassy cables unveiled by WikiLeaks, reported La Jornada, a leading newspaper in Mexico City.

The U.S. Embassy in Mexico City reportedly wrote the cables following three bilateral conferences on firearms trafficking that took place in Mexico between March 2009 and January 2010.

The cables from the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City to the State Department in Washington, D.C., reported that lethal weapons, including anti-tank firearms and grenades, were stolen from military forces in Central America and then smuggled into Mexico through the Guatemala border, reported La Jornada on Mar. 29.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-embassy-cables-90-percent-most-lethal

Drug cartels' new weaponry means war
By Ken Ellingwood and Tracy Wilkinson

March 15, 2009

***snip***

The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico's drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

***snip***

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

***snip***

The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

[slackmaster]

324. That's three supposed problems, and you haven't provided evidence that any exist.

How about just one really big problem that we can all focus on?

[Sadena Meti]

345. Three problems - It is easy as hell for criminal to get guns, as I've done and seen with my own eyes

The difficulty in tracing guns is obvious for the same reason that fingerprints don't immediately identify the owners (I am not advocating we fingerprint everyone). Or get DNA samples like they do in the UK.

[slackmaster]

350. We've had full registration and sales tracking of handguns in California since 1968

Yet amazingly enough, criminals still manage to get them.

Please don't try to tell me all illegally-owned handguns in California come from other states.

[Sadena Meti]

352. Private sales and gun show loopholes still are open in California. You don't have to go through a..

dealer to transfer a firearm. So shill / straw buying is still done as well.

[Sadena Meti]

354. And actually guns ARE brought in from other states, in New York as well.

[slackmaster]

374. Please provide evidence showing what percentage of California crime guns come from other states

TIA

[Sadena Meti]

457. I would need FBI crime trace data of recovered firmarms to do that, but the analogy with NYC is...

clear. It is common knowledge and official fact that handguns are smuggled into NYC. It's absurd to think that the people on the opposite coast haven't had the same idea.

[slackmaster]

459. Smuggling a gun into NYC from another state requires much less travel than for Los Angeles

It's a looooong drive to Las Vegas or Yuma from the California coast, and you're still wrong about private-party transfers and gun show transactions in California.

Wrong.

:rofl:

WRONG!!!

[beevul]

358. No actually they arent..

"Private sales and gun show loopholes still are open in California. You don't have to go through a dealer to transfer a firearm."


As a matter of fact, and law, in CA YES YOU DO.

[Sadena Meti]

362. Wrong, the gun show loop hole is wide open in California.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CA/

[slackmaster]

371. The Brady site is flat-out wrong. They should have given California a 7 by their stated criteria.

All private-party transfers of used firearms, except for C&R long guns, have to go through a licensed dealer in California.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/

[beevul]

375. Ahem...

You were saying...?

[beevul]

377. Now thet its been shown that the Batty bunch has misled you...

(fine print and all)

Are you still going to carry their water?

[slackmaster]

378. Correction - You need to look at the fine print on the Brady site's scorecard for Gun Show Loophole

"** States with universal background checks on all firearms not eligible for gun show loophole points"

[beevul]

385. And, as if you hadn't tipped your hand already, this is where you give it all away.

No pro-gun person buys what the brady bunch sells.


We may cite them and use their own words and statements and statistics against them...


But not a single one of us buys into their BS.





Thanks for playing.


Pretender rating:


Average.

[iverglas]

407. lovely to see

how y'all still think attacking the speaker instead of the speech constitutes civil / democratic discourse. ;)

Does California require background checks (or licence checks, if that's applicable) for private sales?

If it does, that's all you needed to say!

And it was the only thing that was worth saying. You just wasted your post. But hey, there's no limit!

[beevul]

408. Please.

"how y'all still think attacking the speaker instead of the speech constitutes civil / democratic discourse."


Make sure you apply that evenly now, wont you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x409492

"If it does, that's all you needed to say!"



Still presuming to be the arbiter of others needs I see.


Thanks, but I'm not having any.

[iverglas]

409. oooh, still spinning and misrepresenting as fast as you can, I see!

Still presuming to be the arbiter of others needs I see.

Either that, or hallucinating.

Maybe I really was typing in invisible pixels under the influence of an irresistible influence, and I really did say something to which your comment related and of which your comment was an accurate and truthful representation.




....... Nah.

[beevul]

411. Direct quote dearie.

"If it does, that's all you needed to say!"

The "you" in that sentence is MOI.


And you just presumed to tell me what I needed.


So quit with the "I said X but I meant Y...err I said Y but I meant X" schtick already...it was old and we were wise to it 3 years ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774


Ta.

[Name removed]

413. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

414. How unpredictable. Not. N/T

[slackmaster]

370. You are not at all informed about California state gun laws

You don't have to go through a... ...dealer to transfer a firearm.

You ought to do some basic research on the topic. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I have a Federal Firearms License, and as such I am required to be familiar with the gun laws of any state in which I acquire or dispose of firearms. I live in California, so I am intimately familiar with the law here. I have bought many firearms here, including from private parties and at gun shows.

Here's a good place to start - http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/

All transfers between non-licensees have to go through a licensed dealer, with a background check on the buyer and a 10-day waiting period. The only exception to that is for long guns that are recognized by the state as curios or relics.

Gun show transactions (as is the case in ALL states) are subject to the same federal and state laws and procedures as transactions that occur at places other than gun shows.

[Oneka]

284. His/her

problem is a free society, and his/her solution to that problem would surely work, if it didn't start a civil war.

[Sadena Meti]

270. I must say I have enjoyed this interchange.

The level of debate wasn't up to what it's like at www.RevLeft.com , but you get different types of people there. More eloquent and informed. Still, this was good, this was fun. I look forward to doing it again.

[Sadena Meti]

273. Although I must say the points argued sounded so very right wing it made me wonder where I was :)

[Upton]

313. Sure...

the thread pointing out how great it was for the people of the Eastern Bloc during the days of the old Soviet Union looks particularly exciting.. :eyes:

[beevul]

280. If you are as knowledgable about federal law as you claim to be...

You would know that per federal law, registration at the federal level is illegal.



Beyond that - not just no, but HELL NO.

[Sadena Meti]

287. Not constitutionally, and all statutes can be changed.

[beevul]

290. I didnt claim "constitutionally.

And while all statutes can be changed...theres the matter of me and tens of millions of others that say:


HELL NO.

[Sadena Meti]

292. The arugument, properly put, would seem reasonable to many people.

Remember, this is the country that passed prohibition.

The opposition would come from actual gun owners, which are a minority.

And even not all of them would oppose it.

Maybe 50 million against it, that leaves 250 million to persuade.

"It's just a start, they'll take the guns away!" Well, the vast majority don't have guns, so don't care.

[beevul]

294. I don't doubt it.

"Remember, this is the country that passed prohibition."

Remember too, that this is the country that repealed it.

"The opposition would come from actual gun owners, which are a minority."


A minority?

80 million plus is no small number. And gun owners are THE single most energized voting bloc in existance.

"Well, the vast majority don't have guns, so don't care."


They also don't care enough to vote on the issue as an energized voting bloc.

[one-eyed fat man]

390. You overlook one tiny problem

If the minority with guns strenuously object, what are those without guns going to do?

Hope the Army will do their bidding and use their guns to take everyone else's' away? As all good uber Leftists eschew military service it is unlikely a large part of the military will agree with you.

On your second point. I was born in Germany in 1942. My parents managed to get West in 1954. All you pinheaded morons and the "millionaire Markists" pining for the wonderfullness of life under the "Workers' Paradise" of the USSR, or the DDR are delusional. When you were born the "Rote Armee Fraktion" was trying to get West Germans to see the light.

You were eleven when the Wall came down. It's unlikely you concerned about much more than if your parents were going to spring for the new Nintendo.

[Sadena Meti]

458. You confuse Stalism with Communism, especially Utopian Communism.

Was I really only 11 when the wall came down? I remember it clearly. I was in a hotel room in San Francisco. Wait, or was that the fall of the Soviet Union... I forget.

[one-eyed fat man]

525. Either that or your were lying about your age as well.

Utopian Communism, what an oxymoron! The closest you might find that is if you decide to become a Trappist monk. And since you have proclaimed yourself to have gone from raised Catholic, to lapsed Catholic, to agnostic, and then atheist that is as likely as you understanding what Communism brought in practice.

Regardless, with your demonstrated sense of entitlement that lets you justify you criminal behavior as warranted, even exemplary, is delusional enough.

Like the Red Brigades of the 70's and the rest of the urbane Marxists of the Che T-shirts, designer jeans and wasting their parents money pretending they are the put upon proletariat. As far as they know Manual Labor is the guy who cleans their swimming pool.

[YllwFvr]

307. even if it was changed at the federal level

it is still illegal in my state

[Sadena Meti]

346. If it was an addendum to the National Firearms Act it would take precedence over state laws.

[YllwFvr]

355. perhaps, im not sure how some of that works

LEOSA doesnt apply in every state, sadly, so I cant understand how that system works.

Too bad, Id love to be able to carry to NYC

[Sadena Meti]

359. I think you can carry in NYC, or at least you used to (info 5-10 years old)

[oneshooter]

526. Only if you are famous or rich, or both.

The Sullivan Act has been law there since 1911. There is no open carry and CC permits are very expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

As I have said before only the rich and famous can get CC permits.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Sadena Meti]

293. You might be suprised to know I'm in favor of an armed populace...

...just opposed to gun crime, a side-effect. I want a rifle in every home, like in Switzerland.

[jpak]

297. Best Gungeon Thread Evah!!111

:rofl:

[rrneck]

300. You should give him some tips

on how to produce content free non sequiters.

[NewMoonTherian]

443. It does have quite an epic feel, doesn't it?

I'm having a blast!

[RSillsbee]

305. Nevermind

There is no point in participating in this discussion

[TheWraith]

311. We have a 100% registration system like that for pistols here in New York State.

You know what? It's a total and complete failure at preventing the use of guns in crime. Because get what--criminals don't register their weapons. Mostly, they steal them.

[lawodevolution]

312. We need to abolish all gun registration systems

[Hoyt]

334. You wish. Why, if you are responsible gun owner and would only sell to another responsible one?

You should be held accountable.

[lawodevolution]

351. Gun registration systems are only useful for confiscation in the US

and that goes against the 2A which is defined now as an individual right, so gun registration systems will be ditched, it's a matter of time.

[Sadena Meti]

353. Gun registration can not lead to confiscation without constitutional action... which would require..

a vote by the states representing the will of the masses. It won't happen. And even if it was tried it just wouldn't work. It is a fantasy.

[beevul]

379. Tell that to SKS owners in CA...

And to people who were in Katrina.


Or is it only confiscation if they go after them ALL?


I'm sure that would make those in CA whos SKS semi automatic rifles and those in katrina whos guns of every type were taken under color of law...feel so much better.

[Euromutt]

318. So how will that stop guns being smuggled into the country?

Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that your scheme would actually succeed in shutting down all domestic sources of firearms to the black market. It's not going to affect firearms manufactured abroad and smuggled into the country, as these will remain wholly unregistered in the United States, and they well even go unregistered in their country of origin.

For example, even in China, corruption and lousy inventory control at firearms manufacturing plants mean that employees can sell firearms "out the back door" to organized crime, and they do. In countries like the UK, Netherlands, Japan and Russia, the criminal element can (and do) readily acquire firearms if they want them, up to and including automatic weapons, stringent controls on private firearms ownership notwithstanding. And Russia is the exception in that list mostly because it's the only one where the guns don't have to imported from abroad first.

AS you keep saying "a fringe will always slip through." If that fringe is large enough to supply the criminal demand for firearms, your proposed "solution" will in fact solve exactly nothing.

Consider this: coca plants can only grow in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, and the entire world supply of coca paste comes from these three countries. And yet, how hard is it to acquire, say, ten grams of cocaine in any major U.S. or western European city?

[Sadena Meti]

347. I actually have some direct knowledge of gun smuggling.

The only guns that are smuggled in are full-automatic weapons, as they are the only one worth the trouble. Return on investment. Then you have the problem of distribution. It's not as easy to move a light machine gun as it is to move narcotics, which have high demand in all locations.

[Euromutt]

436. Right, it's only worth it to smuggle automatic weapons NOW

But supposing, for the sake of the argument, your system of registration were to work in cutting off the supply of firearms diverted (as the ATF calls it) from the domestic legal private market, then it would become worth the trouble to smuggle in stuff like handguns. Just like already happens in the UK, Jamaica, Japan etc. And where you find drug dealers, you typically find demand for handguns.

Recommended reading in this regard is Daniel Polsby's article "Firearm Costs, Firearm Benefits and the Limits of Knowledge," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, no. 1, 1995 (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PolsbyFirearmCosts.htm ). A sample:

Of course gun runners will seek the least cost and most convenient source of supply, whatever it may be, legal markets, if available, but if they cannot deliver what is demanded, the turn to illegal markets, of smuggled guns or guns manufactured in cottage industry, is a simple operation. The acquisition behavior of illicit retail customers should be discouraged modestly at best by piling costs on gun runners. These customers are seeking to invest in capital plant for which there exists no ready substitutes. Licit buyers, on the other hand, usually are shopping for items of personal consumption, for which a number of obvious substitutes (e.g., archery; B-B guns; and for that matter, going to the movies) evidently exist. The implication of this situation, though usually ignored, is very important: the price sensitivity of firearms buyers will diminish as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more sinister. The price sensitivity of buyers will increase as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more innocuous.

The expectation that the sorts of market interventions described by Cook et al. would have a beneficial effect on the homicide rate embeds the assumption of monotonicity, that is, that there are constant returns (in the form of lowered homicide rates) to reductions in the number of firearms in private hands. Those who in any degree credit the possibility of Heinlein or Kleck effects operating, however, and who understand the implication of the distinction between "firearm as capital" and "firearm as toy," will regard this assumption as rather naive. Such students of the problem will consider the question of how firearms are distributed in society as much more important than how many there are. They will also reject as inherently counter-productive efforts to adopt policies that aim at reducing the number of arms in the hands of criminals by imposing regulatory costs in licit markets.

Emphases in italics mine.

[Sadena Meti]

460. There wouldn't be per unit profit in say, smuggling a a truck load of Glocks

You can buy a, let us say, an RPK-74 light machine-gun from a legitimate Russian manufacturer at $2000 per unit. You then smuggle them into the Unites States (easier than you might think) and sell them for $10,000 a unit, and get this, under you could even sell them legally though a gun dealer (the buyer would have to jump through some hoops, namely getting a judge or a chief LEO (law enforcement officer) to sign off on the purchase).

That's 500% profit.

[beevul]

462. Good grief.

"You can buy a, let us say, an RPK-74 light machine-gun from a legitimate Russian manufacturer at $2000 per unit. You then smuggle them into the Unites States (easier than you might think) and sell them for $10,000 a unit, and get this, under you could even sell them legally though a gun dealer (the buyer would have to jump through some hoops, namely getting a judge or a chief LEO (law enforcement officer) to sign off on the purchase)."


I suggest you read more about the national firearms act, and more specifically the NFA registry, and the fact that it is CLOSED.

Know what that means?

Civillian ownable automatic weapons are ONLY the ones on the registry already. No new ones can be added to the registry.


So again, you are wrong.

I thought you said you knew federal law.

[Sadena Meti]

468. Wrong, I know from first hand experience.

A smuggled automatics could be sold through legal channels (and of course through illegal channels) and the transfers would raise to flag.

A future TRACE would certainly raise a flag, i.e. where the F did this gun come from.

But the manufacture and/or import of a firearm are not queried at transfers.

[beevul]

477. For the third time...

For the third time, the national firearms act registry is CLOSED. That means no new automatic weapons can be added to it. That means that nothing that is NOT on the registry is legal for a civilian non-leo non-manufacturer to own.

Period. No exceptions.

NONE.

Do you think anyone is going to LET YOU pay a tax on an illegal weapon which can not be added to the registry?

Do you think the Chief LEO is going to sign off on a transfer of an automatic weapon for which no 200 dollar tax has been paid and no background check done?


"A smuggled automatics could be sold through legal channels (and of course through illegal channels) and the transfers would raise to(no?) flag."


You are wrong. You are completely wrong. 100% completely totally and utterly wrong.


I'm sure our resident FFL holders will be along soon, to tell you exactly the same thing.


Like the other poster, I don't think you know near as much about any of this as you'd have everyone believe.


You wouldn't make the demonstrably false claims you do, if you did.

[Sadena Meti]

481. The provinence of the firearm is not checked at the transfer.

The judge or the chief LEO do not do a trace on the gun. In fact I'm not even sure the serial numbers are on the paperwork at that stage. Only the ATF/HLS can do traces (can the FBI? I'm not sure, I'll have to look though my legal case paperwork to see who did the traces in my case).

There is no import or manufacture check performed at ANY sale or ANY transfer. Why? Because 99.9% of the time it would result in nothing. And because the dealer doesn't have access to that information.

[beevul]

484. Christ on a cracker.

Again...


You CAN NOT LAWFULLY possess an NFA firearm intil AFTER the tax is paid, background check done. PERIOD.

Its the serial number thats entered into the NFA registry, along with make model etc. You pay your 200, get your background check, and the weapon and its paperwork - ALL nfa weapons have paperwork that the previous owner has, and the new owner gets -




ALL that HAS to happen BEFORE you ever take possession of it.

Thats what you just can't seem to grasp.

Unless your legal case had to do with NFA weapons, and it didnt, or you'd have gotten 5-10 instead of 18 months, it has absolutely NO BEARING on what we are talking about.

If a person with no record called atf and told them he/she had an automatic weapon they would like to register, they would promptly be doing 5-10 in club fed.

Guaranteed.

[Sadena Meti]

489. The check is on you, not the WEAPONS!

"You CAN NOT LAWFULLY possess an NFA firearm until AFTER the tax is paid, background check done. PERIOD.

Its the serial number that's entered into the NFA registry, along with make model etc. You pay your 200, get your background check, and the weapon and its paperwork - ALL nfa weapons have paperwork that the previous owner has, and the new owner gets"

When the gun dealer calls in to the check, he gives them information on YOU, not the weapon, and then is give a yes, no, or HOLD response (hold responses are interesting).

[beevul]

499. Its now clear, that you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.

"When the gun dealer calls in to the check, he gives them information on YOU, not the weapon, and then is give a yes, no, or HOLD response (hold responses are interesting)."


While that may be true for regular firearm transfers from an ffl, thats NOT how NFA transfers work.

You thought it was a simple phone call didnt you. :rofl:

Heres some free information:

What you are talking about, is a simple NICS check.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/news/speeches/celebrating-the-10th-anniversary-of-nics

Heres the reality with machineguns - which IS what were talking about goes something like this:


All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.

The registration or transfer process (to an individual or corporation) takes approximately 1–3 months to complete. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Corporations which own NFA firearms can loan them to any employee of the corporation with a letter of permission on the corporate letterhead. NFA items owned by trusts may be legally possessed by any trustee (i.e., if a husband and wife are both trustees, either of them may use and transport the firearm without the other present).

Upon the demand of any ATF agent, the registered owner must produce the original ATF Form with tax stamp affixed to prove the firearm is legally owned. Technically speaking, owners are not required to produce the form for any non-ATF personnel (i.e., local police officers do not have the legal right to demand to see the form). However, in practice, most NFA firearm owners keep a photocopy of their paperwork with the firearm at all times, and will show it to any authority that requests it to avoid legal issues. Many owners keep the original form in a safe place, such as a safe deposit box, to avoid damaging it, as the ATF will not replace a damaged $200 tax stamp.

In a number of situations, an NFA item may be transferred without a transfer tax. These include sales to government agencies, temporary transfers of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repairs, and transfer of an NFA firearm to a lawful heir after the death of its owner. A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by the ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. Temporary transfers, such as those to a gunsmith or to the original manufacturer for repair, are not subject to ATF approval since they are not legally considered transfers. The ATF does, however, recommend filing tax-free transfer paperwork on all such temporary transfers, to confer an extra layer of legal protection on both the owner and the gunsmith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


So your little "The check is on you, not the WEAPONS" has just been demonstrated wrong.

As has your ""When the gun dealer calls in to the check, he gives them information on YOU, not the weapon, and then is give a yes, no, or HOLD response".


I'm going to give a piece of advice:

If you are going to debate in this forum, know what you are talking about.

Thinking you know just doesn't cut it. Not with me and not with anyone else.



You'll get taken to task on it, every single time.

[Sadena Meti]

502. The AFT "MAY" request the original tax stamp.

If the paperwork can't be found, there is no requirement to maintain it.


And not to try to deflect the subject, those most interested in light machine guns aren't going to be buying them from a dealer anyway :)

[beevul]

505. Oh no you dont.

The claim being disputed here - YOUR claim - was this:

You can buy a, let us say, an RPK-74 light machine-gun from a legitimate Russian manufacturer at $2000 per unit. You then smuggle them into the Unites States (easier than you might think) and sell them for $10,000 a unit, and get this, under you could even sell them legally though a gun dealer (the buyer would have to jump through some hoops, namely getting a judge or a chief LEO (law enforcement officer) to sign off on the purchase).

That's 500% profit.


You said that.


You were proven wrong.

You even showed everyone that you thought that NFA weapons had a phone call NICS instant check.

And showed everyone that you thought it was the person rather than the weapon being checked.

"And not to try to deflect the subject, those most interested in light machine guns aren't going to be buying them from a dealer anyway"


Then you contradict yourself by saying that "most interested in light machine guns aren't going to be buying them from a dealer anyway" (which isnt actually true, but you believe it is or wouldnt have said it) after saying that people could make a 500% profit by doing what you clamed can be done, and in fact can't.

"And not to try to deflect the subject.."


:rofl:

Like I said in the other posts...


Just give it up.

[Euromutt]

470. Why on earth not?

According to a source for the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1) the going rate for a smuggled Glock in the UK is ~£2,000, the equivalent of about $3,300. The retail price of a legally sold Glock in the United States is $500-600, so if a smuggled Glock could fetch a comparable price on the American black market as it does on the British one, a trafficker could make a 500% profit on Glocks as well.

The point you seem to be repeatedly missing is that, even though there's currently not enough profit to be made smuggling handguns into the United States, if your scheme were successful in cutting off all domestic conduits to the black market, smuggling would become profitable. That's a simple matter of supply and demand: when supply is reduced but demand remains constant, the price will rise. But as Polsby points out in the article to which I linked previously, "the price sensitivity of firearms buyers will diminish as their motive for owning a firearm becomes more sinister." British drug dealers can and do pay £2,000 for a Glock or £1,500 for a less fashionable 9mm semi-auto, and there's no reason to assume American drug dealers wouldn't do the same.

<...> and get this, under you could even sell them legally though a gun dealer <...>

No, you couldn't. The NFA registry has been closed to privately owned automatic weapons since 1986, and it's been illegal to import automatic weapons for sale to private (non-government) entities for significantly longer than that.

I get the impression you don't actually know quite as much about gun laws and the practice of violating them as you claim.

[Sadena Meti]

473. This really doesn't change my point.

Increased prices would be a good thing on the black market, it would make the firearms less accessible. Part of the "War on Drugs" is the goal of raising the street price.


"and it's been illegal to import automatic weapons for sale to private (non-government) entities for significantly longer than that."


That's why I said you smuggle them in first, then sell them.


Also, you compared the street price in the US to the Black Market price in the UK. Unfair comparison. Guns are more expensive in the UK, legal or not (I lived there for 3 months).

The Black Market price in the UK is high because it is hard for ANYONE to get a gun there, not just criminals. Non-felons buy off the Black Market in the UK. And not just guns either. Normal people regularly partake in "boot-sales" of "dodgy goods".

[Euromutt]

537. I'm having an increasingly hard time making out what your point actually IS

I keep prefacing my posts with hypothetical qualifiers to the effect of "assuming your idea were implemented, and assuming it works" but you seem to be incapable of taking that into account on your responses.

Look, we have historical examples of countries where registration of privately owned firearms is required--not just the UK, but pretty much the rest of Europe as well, not to mention Japan, Russia, etc.--where the criminal element is still able to acquire firearms (particularly handguns) if and when they want them. And I don't understand how you can argue almost without drawing breath that a) the black market markup will be high enough to deter buyers, and b) that the black market markup won't be high enough to make it worth anybody's while to traffick handguns.

Okay, fine, the markup for a smuggled handgun might not be 500% or more in a prospective American black market, but it's still likely to be sufficiently high to make it worth somebody's while. It is everywhere else.

That's why I said you smuggle them in first, then sell them.

Yeah, sure. Thing is, any legally owned automatic weapon has to be registered with the ATF (per the National Firearms Act of 1934), and it has been impossible to make new entries in the NFA registry since 1986 (due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986). But you're already embroiled in a discussion with beevul about that, I see.

[AtheistCrusader]

327. I generally support the idea of registration.

However, it has been abused, at the very least, by the state of California to seize assault rifles registered after a certain date. So Americans are generally gun-shy about registration.

That aside, Ballistic Fingerprinting does not work. Maryland and New York have 'fingerprinted' tens of thousands of firearms since 2000. One, single, solitary crime has been solved using the database, at a cost of millions. FAR less effective than the random stop that caught you. AND it only worked in that case, likely because the weapon hadn't been cleaned since the crime was committed. A simple brass brush used to clean the barrel, a standard cleaning technique, will change the 'fingerprint' of the weapon. It doesn't work.


On the flipside, the NRA does support (to the best of my knowledge) opening up NICS so private transfers can be conducted with a NICS check. Currently, I will only sell a firearm to a person with a valid concealed weapons permit. It's the only tool I have to find out. NICS is not accessible to me.

[Sadena Meti]

348. Wrong, brass is softer than steel. You'd need a steel file to change the rifling.

[beevul]

361. You need to study the concept of abrasion.

And understand that there is more to it than you think.

Lead is also softer than steel, yet both lead and jacketed rounds wear a barrel.

[Sadena Meti]

364. Hundreds of rounds followed by an explosive blast resulting in high temperatures.

[beevul]

381. And?

The dirty remnants of firing a gun, combined with a soft metal brush = abrasion.


Or did you think criminals would only try it with new shiny clean barrels?

[AtheistCrusader]

393. Enough changes to alter the 'fingerprint' can be attained simply by firing a few more rounds.

Fingerprinting doesn't work the way you seem to think.

In fact, I think it is disingenuous to call it fingerprinting. Fingerprints are not subject to the forms of erosion that a barrel and chamber will experience. Barring significant scarring, 20 years after your fingerprints are collected, they can be tied to you. Not so, with a ballistic 'fingerprint'.

[AtheistCrusader]

392. Wrong.

The ballistic fingerprint changes even with the firing of additional rounds.

Keep in mind, we are talking about ballistic FINGERPRINTING, via a database search, not a forensics analysis of a gun in hand, to match to a bullet in hand, from a crime scene. Detailed analysis can generally prove a link, to a satisfactory degree of confidence. Fingerprinting does not.

You do NOT need a steel brush to change the weapon's 'fingerprint'. Yes, it would also work for that purpose, but no, it is not necessary.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

394. Quite correct.

This process is accelerated by the use of metal jacketed rounds which are exceptionally common.

Many of the forensic tools available today are big advantage.
People just love it, mostly because it makes nice TV.

However, what a lot of folks (not necessarily you) seem to need to learn is that the impairing and outlawing of rights is not just another "tool".
Rights may only be compromised by judicial due process.

[PavePusher]

445. Now I question if you know how guns actually function.

Unless you are using highly esoteric (and restricted) armor-peircing ammo, no brass generally goes down a barrel and affects the rifling.

[Sadena Meti]

461. While copper jacketing is more common, brass jacketing does exist...

And in fact was my favorite ammunition, 102 grain brass-jacketed hollow-point Remington Golden Sabers.

And we were discussing brass cleaning brushes.

And even a fully brass-jacketed round wouldn't piece a vest. You'd have to talking about steel jacketed, steel internal spikes, or bronze slugs.

Still don't think I know about firearms?

[beevul]

463. Wrong again.

"And even a fully brass-jacketed round wouldn't piece a vest. You'd have to talking about steel jacketed, steel internal spikes, or bronze slugs."

Any center fire rifle slug (with very few exceptions) will pierce a common vest. You need ceramic plate to stop them.



"Still don't think I know about firearms?"


I suspect, more than he did before you made that statement.

[Sadena Meti]

469. I was talking about handguns. Obviously rifles, hi-standards, and M22's are going to pierce a vest.

And by the way, trauma plates are steel, not ceramic.

[beevul]

472. Look into it.

Theyre also making them ceramic now.

[Sadena Meti]

476. Who would want a plate that is lighter but stops only 1 round?

Funny story, until I was 16 I always though "ceramic" was pronounced "cremaic". It made sense, you cremate it.

[PavePusher]

516. Who says they stop only one round?

Ceramic has been the standard plate material for years now. Stronger and lighter than steel/titanium/etc. plates, but still damn heavy.

You keep demonstrating a severe lack of knowledge. Please, please, look this stuff up before you post....

[David West]

335. Your hypocritical misuse of the "Anarchy" symbol makes me said. NT

[Sadena Meti]

349. I am proposing solutions for this country in this situation, not in the ideal state I would live in.

[iverglas]

500. excellent point

Myself, I'm as socialist as circumstances allow, which here in Canada in this decade means electorally and that means social democrat. And if the election today turns out as it should (which it likely won't though), we may have taken a nice step in the right direction!

In my ideal world there would be a very scarce supply of firearms, available for very specific purposes. I have no intention whatsoever of advocating that firearms be banned in my here and now, and have never exprssed the slightest desire for that. ;)

[krispos42]

336. Welcome to the Jungle. Er, Gungeon.

Won't work, sorry. Not rational, not reasonable, and "ballistic fingerprinting" is horribly misnamed in that it implies an accuracy standard that doesn't exist.

[WatsonT]

360. Ah yes, do away with free association and replace it with a police state

that monitors citizens at all times.

Then you can feel safe. You won't *be* safe, but that's not important.

[Sadena Meti]

363. And registering firearms has exactly WHAT to do with the right to free association?

[WatsonT]

366. Ahem

"And it will never happen unless the NRA is outlawed."

The NRA is a private organization of individuals choosing to associate with each other.

To outlaw it would mean that the government does not allow freedom of association.

[Sadena Meti]

369. In the 1940's brown shirts organization (Nazi sympathizers) were broken up and outlawed.

[WatsonT]

372. Hahah, wow you don't think these things through before typing them do you?

Brownshirts killed people directly and used violence and indimidation as agents of the state to suppress dissenting views.

The NRA . . . sends out pamphlets.

The Brownshirts and other nazi groups were banned under ********AN AUTHORITATIVE MILITARY DICTATORSHIP WHERE THE AVERAGE GERMAN CITIZEN HAD NO RIGHTS AND NO REPRESENTATION********

They were occupied territory ruled over by a foreign military alliance. If you want military rule and no representation and for the US to be more like a thoroughly defeated and occupied vassal state, then go ahead and try for it. But I will oppose you.

You may see having troops stationed on ever corner ready to gun down any who get out of line as a desirable world. I do not.

[Sadena Meti]

464. Actually I was refering to Brown Shirts in the USA. This happened in my hometown, and they...

weren't committing crimes, they were merely supporting the Nazi party.

[Sadena Meti]

367. See you all tomorrow, I'm off to May Day celebrations.

[slackmaster]

384. You're still wrong about California private-party transfers and gun shows

Have a good one.

[Sadena Meti]

456. Back from May Day, ready to argue some more, god, 75 new posts...

[HankyDubs]

389. Lets compare cars to guns.

I mean you gungeon folks just love to do that, right?

My car is registered, and I'm licensed to drive. Car registration and licensing did not lead to confiscation of all cars. There was no slippery slope.

[beevul]

401. Ok hanky. But remember you asked for it.

First cars are required to be registered to USE on public roads. NOT to own.

Second, Owning a car is not a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right. Owning a gun is.


Third, no drivers license is required to OWN a car nor is it required to USE a car on private property.



Fourth, gun registration HAS led to gun confiscation right here in america.





Thanks for playing.

[iverglas]

402. yeah, I've always loved this one myself

First cars are required to be registered to USE on public roads. NOT to own.
Third, no drivers license is required to OWN a car nor is it required to USE a car on private property.

First, there are magical shrinking machines that enable you to walk off your private property with your car strapped to your ankle where nobody else can see it.

Oh, no, wait, I forgot; we now have the Klingon cloaking device that enables you to drive your car off your property and all around the public highways and byways without being seen.

There's one huge similarity!

On the other hand ... it could be the huge difference that completely obviates your specious distinction between cars and firearms.


Second, Owning a car is not a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right. Owning a gun is.

Yeah? Wanna predict what happens if some US state government outlaws car ownership? Or deny/revoke drivers' licences on a whim, or on the basis of, oh, race or sex or national origin?

I can sure tell you what would happen here in Canada. But then, we do tend to have a slightly more intelligent grasp of things like rights and freedoms, and take ours a tad more seriously and litigiously.

You have the constitutional right to wear pink polka-dot socks and eat pizza for breakfast, just as I do. Too bad you don't seem to value your rights quite as much as I do.


Fourth, gun registration HAS led to gun confiscation right here in america.

My favourite. ;)

Have they started confiscating your kids yet?

Maybe you had the foresight not to register them.

:rofl:




html fixed

[beevul]

410. Oh how nice...a playmate.

"First, there are magical shrinking machines that enable you to walk off your private property with your car strapped to your ankle where nobody else can see it."

Speaking of specious...the topic is OWNERSHIP, not use.

Do try and keep up.

"You have the constitutional right to wear pink polka-dot socks and eat pizza for breakfast, just as I do. Too bad you don't seem to value your rights quite as much as I do."

I value restrictions on government which protect my rights.

I doubt very much..verry verry much...that such things are concepts you agree with in any way.

"Have they started confiscating your kids yet?"

No refutation, only snark.

Next time, bring your "A game" or you may as well not bother.

Of course, this means sifting through mountains of verbiage again...since that IS your A game.

[friendly_iconoclast]

415. Since you thoughtfully brought up the subject of drivers' licenses for us...

Yeah? Wanna predict what happens if some US state government outlaws car ownership? Or deny/revoke drivers' licences on a whim, or on the basis of, oh, race or sex or national origin?

I can sure tell you what would happen here in Canada. But then, we do tend to have a slightly more intelligent grasp of things like rights and freedoms, and take ours a tad more seriously and litigiously.

Denial of a gun permit on a whim is precisely what precipitated the Heller and McDonald cases that resulted

in restrictions on said permits being tossed by the Supremes.


I trust that you, like me, feel that any necessary permit from a government entity should be issued without fear or favor?

[iverglas]

416. let's play let's pretend!

Let's pretend you don't know that I have answered such impertinent questions several brazillion times in the past, and that you don't know full well what the answers are.

Or ... not.

[friendly_iconoclast]

418. Somehow, I doubt you would have filed any amici briefs in the two cases mentioned...

What's an oft-proclaimed principle when icky American guns (and icky American gun owners) are concerned?

And a gentle reminder to you concerning your oft-repeated claims of Canadian superiority (emphasis added):

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/racism

The Ontario Human Rights Commission describes communities facing racism as “racialized.” This is because society artificially constructs the idea of “race” based on geographic, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors, as well as physical traits, that have no justification for notions of racial superiority or racial prejudice.

Racism is a broader experience and practice than racial discrimination.It is an ideology that either directly or indirectly asserts that one group is inherently superior to others. Racism can be openly displayed in racial jokes and slurs or hate crimes, but can also be more deeply rooted in attitudes, values and stereotypical beliefs.

You were saying?

[beevul]

420. Ouch. N/T

[iverglas]

424. I know what I was saying

Unfortunately, YOU have wandered off on one of your through-the-looking-glass expeditions into incoherency. So just don't ask me what YOU were saying, because I have no clue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

427. Well, what *were* you saying re Heller and McDonald? I seem to have missed it.

Amici briefs aside, were these cases examples of the deprivation of rights under color of law, or were they not?

[iverglas]

428. happy to be of service; the answer:

Nothing.

You posted a statement with a question mark at the end.

I trust that you, like me, feel that any necessary permit from a government entity should be issued without fear or favor?

I took it you wanted an answer. I gave you some.

In Heller and McDonald the issue was not administrative action. The challenge was to the legislation.

So it was your assertion / question to me that had nothing to do with Heller and McDonald, or with what I had said that prompted you to make that assertion / ask that question. Your reference to Heller and McDonald just looked like white noise to me. Still does.

[friendly_iconoclast]

432. McDonald might have lost if Chicago did not give permits automatically to aldermen....

....in the guise of calling them "special officers", or some such nonsense.

After Heller, such a two-class approach to what had been determined to be a civil right was doomed.

[cleanhippie]

447. .

[iverglas]

417. start here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x202439#202499

And just keep reading on down.

One little sample.

Just in case your memory really does fail you.


Executive summary: Canadians would never tolerate arbitrary or negligent exercise of authority in respect of the issuance of firearms licences. I gather USAmericans do. I have no clue why, and it's not my job to figure it out.

[iverglas]

419. got some spare time?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x275703#276042

Abstract: If you people down there want to appoint/elect/tolerate corrupt public officials who subvert any licence issuance process ... that's your choice! It's astounding to an outsider that anyone would choose such people / tolerate such conduct, but, well, there you are.

[iverglas]

421. here's some more ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x195940#196061

[friendly_iconoclast]

425. Your posts have given me much to ponder, and I've learned several things

1. 45 days is not too long to wait for issuance of a permit.

2. Canadian, Australian, and British voters allegedly do not tolerate corruption.

3. You and Alan Gura agree on at least one issue...

[iverglas]

426. you write such funny stuff

... I've learned several things
1. 45 days is not too long to wait for issuance of a permit.
2. Canadian, Australian, and British voters allegedly do not tolerate corruption.
3. You and Alan Gura agree on at least one issue...


1. Not from me. You learned my opinin from me, I guess. But you really should not assert that you have learned something framed as a fact from me, when the thing in question is not and cannot be anything but an opinion, no matter how worthless or how exalted the source of the opinion might be.

2. You learned that something is allegedly a fact? Okay. Whatever.

3. I suspect he and I agree on numerous "issues", having both been trained in the common law tradition. Agreeing that the arbitrary exercise of administrative authority is intolerable would likely be one of them. I know my opinion in that regard, and I'll assume his, since what you appear to be referring to -- the Heller case -- was unrelated to that issue. We probably wouldn't agree that he's a right-wing jerk, since he'd probably dispute my opinion on that one.

[iverglas]

423. let me take you back, way back, waaaay back

to the year 2003.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x935#1040

In my own paradigm, if a government may do something but doesn't do it, i.e. doesn't do it at all (rather than doing it sometimes and not others, for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons), then there's just no problem -- unless the refusal to act, itself, violates a constitutional right.

If the government of Ontario decided to stop issuing driver's licences to anyone, then somebody would undoubtedly challenge that decision/action in the courts. The argument would be that refusing to issue driver's licences -- as long as a driver's licence was still required for driving on the public highways -- was an unconstitutional interference with liberty.

Of course, the smart way of doing that would be to bring an application to compel the government to issue the licence -- not to go driving around without a licence and waiting until you get charged. (Gosh, maybe those firearms owners in that Massachusetts town could try that one, and get their costs awarded to them in the process.)

And unless the government could establish some really great big reason for doing what it had done -- that it was acting in pursuit of a really important public purpose, that what it had done was rationally connected to that purpose, that what it had done was the least possible impairment of liberty, and so on according to the tests that apply -- the courts would strike the law down. ...

But of course, you had not the slightest idea what I think about the arbitrary exercise of administrative authority, so you were clearly speaking in all innocence when you said to me:

I trust that you, like me, feel that any necessary permit from a government entity should be issued without fear or favor?

and you weren't trying at all to imply that it would be reasonable to believe that I "felt" otherwise.

Heavens to Betsy, what an idea.

[friendly_iconoclast]

429. Wow, I actually *do* agree with you on this issue, with one small caveat.

Of course, the smart way of doing that would be to bring an application to compel the government to issue the licence -- not to go driving around without a licence and waiting until you get charged. (Gosh, maybe those firearms owners in that Massachusetts town could try that one, and get their costs awarded to them in the process.)

Unfortunately, the way the legal system here is structured, a case without a specific claim of deprivation of rights may

be rejected as not having standing.


IOW, you may have to break the law in order to change the law. Heller and McDonald did not, because the deprivation

of rights claims obtained from the refusal to issue the licenses by the two relevant city governments. Not that DC and Chicago

didn't try the tactic of claiming in so many words, "we dispute the plaintiffs standing because we reject ALL applications for

permits, so no discrimination occurred".

[iverglas]

433. but those are two very different issues

Not that DC and Chicago didn't try the tactic of claiming in so many words, "we dispute the plaintiffs standing because we reject ALL applications for permits, so no discrimination occurred".

A law that allows for no issuance of permits to carry handguns, for example, is a legislative restriction on the exercise of a right (at its simplest, the right to liberty -- to do as one chooses).

A law that allows for the issuance of permits to carry handguns and lays down non-vague, non-arbitrary criteria for making the decision as to whether to issue a permit is also a restriction on the exercise of a right.

Those restrictions may or may not be found to be constitutionally valid -- in both our cases, by a judicial authority with the power to interpret the constitution and strike down legislation found to violate it.

But the practice of basing decisions as to whether to issue permits on irrelevant or arbitrary factors is a matter of administrative law and the rights that pertain in that field.

My point has always related to that practice. In Canada, for instance, there is a procedure right in the Firearms Act for challenging a decision by a chief firearms officer regarding the issuance of a firearms permit. Arbitrary, discriminatory decisions simply don't happen, or in the very odd case if they do, they are subject to review. And they do get reviewed. I cited a case here some time back of someone who was denied a permit and challenged the decision and got the permit, despite a criminal record or some such thing.

On the other point, the actual legislation (the subject in Heller and McDonald, no?), Canadian law does allow, for example, for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms, but the legislation sets out the very narrow circumstances in which this may be done, and in practice it isn't done. That's a policy choice made by elected governments on which you can be sure there is overwhelming consensus in the country, and no court is likely to interfere in that choice, as a matter of deference, even if it were found to violate some constitutional right or freedom and not be saved by section 1 of the Charter ("reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society").

The point my historical posts were making was in response to oft-repeated claims of actual cases in which permits were denied for irrelevant or arbitrary reasons. Those seem to me like "a case *with* a specific claim of deprivation of rights" and I just never understand why nobody does anything about them except whine.

Well, I guess I do maybe. Challenging the decision might mean winning, and that would just show that the system actually works ...

[one-eyed fat man]

422. Which states recognize your license?

Can you drive in all 50 states with one license? Your driver's license allows you to operate on public roads and highways all over the country. No need for you to check to see if your license is good while traveling.

If licensing will allow me to carry my concealed weapon in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, then it might be a good thing, but I am sure that's not what you meant.

[friendly_iconoclast]

431. Did you have to be vetted (beyond not having outstanding tickets) to get a license?

Did you have to be rich or well connected to get a license, or buy a car?

[iverglas]

435. it really isn't good practice

to just keep pretending that the flaws in a system, in particular the essentially illegal use of a system, are a valid argument against the system.

If there is a situation in which only the rich or well-connected are able to get firearms-related permits, then (assuming those qualifications are not written into the enabling legislation) someone is behaving improperly and needs to be brought to heel.

If that improper behaviour occurs in the case of firearms-related permits but not in the case of driver's licences, you don't have an argument against requiring that individuals obtain the firearms-related permits in order to engage in the regulated activity. What you have is a case against the improperly behaving person for making arbitrary and capricious decisions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

391. This post, the idea of this topic and...

...most of those favoring these positions are an insult to anyone who understands what a "right" actually is.

[AzNick]

395. I agree with this

Private party to private party sales of firearms should be regulated.

I sold once a revolver to a local guy who had a CCW permit. Without the permit, I would not have sold it to him and traded it in instead.

[slackmaster]

399. How about making the National Instant Check System available for private-party transfers?

You could check a prospective buyer's background for a small fee, and have peace of mind that you have exercised the same diligence as a dealer sale.

Some safeguards would be needed to prevent people from abusing the system, but it wouldn't be very hard to implement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

430. Agreed, with one restriction- Making fraudulent access to the NICS a crime

I am not familiar with the details, is accessing it for non-intended purposes by FFL holders prohibited?

[iverglas]

434. this is the part that has constantly amazed me about this proposal

There is simply no way of exercising oversight over the private vendors (it would not be just FFL holders, it would be anybody selling a firearm, no?).

Some people would apparently rather have essentially open access to their personal information, for any member of the public who decided to give it a go, than have a publicly operated and overseen system.

Yes, there are all the various little double-blind kind of provisions that could be adopted -- the purchaser would have to countersign the access request with a password or something -- but ye gods, what a pointless complexity to introduce when a simple firearms registry is all that is needed, and is really the single most effective way to achieve the goal of minimizing transfers of firearms to non-qualified individuals.

[slackmaster]

444. Yes, I agree whole-heartedly that fraudulent use should be a crime!

I am not familiar with the details, is accessing it for non-intended purposes by FFL holders prohibited?

Yes, only type 01 FFLs (licensed retail gun dealers) are allowed to use it by federal law.

With my type 03 FFL (Collector of Curios and Relics) I am not allowed to use it, nor is a non-licensee.

It makes no sense to me. People who live in states that allow private sales without the help of an FFL are still subject to criminal penalties if they sell a gun to a prohibited person (convicted felon, etc.) but are not allowed to use the system that allows 01 FFLs to make sure they are in compliance with the law.

[iverglas]

400. nice to see somebody carrying the torch ;)

If asked, as I have repeatedly been hereabouts over the last decade, of course, my answer is:

1. mandatory licensing of all owners
2. mandatory registration of all firearms (transfers)
3. mandatory safe/secure storage of all firearms

There will be never be 100% compliance, any more than there is with any other legislation.

Various people will have various incentives for complying.

Those with something to lose if they are caught in violation will think seriously before violating the licensing and registration requirements.

Those with basic common sense and common decency will have their impulses reinforced by the law and understand the importance of widespread compliance even if they and their firearms are not the immediate targets of it.

Those who are ignorant or thoughtless will benefit from the educational effect of safe/secure storage requirements.

Responses like "there are too many guns out there already" are meaningless. You deal with violators as they come to official attention, and meanwhile you institute a system for all new owners and initial transfers to them.


Of course, we are diametrically opposed on other things -- it's pretty obvious, for example, that it's the virtually unlimited access to handguns in the US that sets it apart from its counterparts, and not in a good way.

[friendly_iconoclast]

405. "Those with basic common sense and common decency will have their impulses reinforced by the law .."

Only if the law is perceived as equitable,reasonable, and the minimum necessary to achieve the purported goal of passing

said law. The proposals from the OP are none of these.

[iverglas]

406. you say no, I say yes

Let's say La La La.

Decent, rational people support the mandatory licensing of firearms owners, the mandatory registration of firearms ownership/transfers, and mandatory safe/secure storage of firearms.

Gun militants don't.

La La La.

[friendly_iconoclast]

412. Good to see the Savonarola of Upper Canada back in action.

There's no good reason wingers like Pat Robertson and the American Family Association should have a monopoly on grandiose

moralizing.

Good to see the stalwarts of the Left stepping up once again. The posuers and wannabees have been thin gruel, indeed.

[Sadena Meti]

465. Where were you about 400 posts ago...

[Bold Lib]

524. I suspect she was debating (and loosing her cool) someone about abortion.

Just a hunch.

[ileus]

439. what will registration accomplish? ANS: nothing useful.

[Bold Lib]

441. And how has the registration scheme worked out in Canada?

And perhaps a little education on your part is in order. The "ballistic fingerprint" of a barrel changes through use. A barrel also has a finite life and is often changed. Oh, and "ballistic fingerprints" can be easily altered in short order.

A registration scheme will be of no more use than the current forward trace system in use. It has the same downfall, when firearms are stolen and enter the black market. It's just a giant waste of money that makes some people feel good.

[iverglas]

475. I think I answered that already

Do see post 403.

[Bold Lib]

512. You didn't answer shit. You just accused those that identified the

failed scheme of being write wing because they are doing something responsible that you disagree with. The Canadian registration scheme is a colossal failure - unless the purpose was to waist large amounts money with no results.

You also didn't say shit about:
"The "ballistic fingerprint" of a barrel changes through use. A barrel also has a finite life and is often changed. Oh, and "ballistic fingerprints" can be easily altered in short order.

A registration scheme will be of no more use than the current forward trace system in use. It has the same downfall, when firearms are stolen and enter the black market. It's just a giant waste of money that makes some people feel good."

So why would anyone in their right mind want to add another layer of BS laws that would be of no more use that what is already in place? I suspect that there is a motive other than fighting crime.

[Name removed]

520. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bold Lib]

523. This may come to a shock to your narcissism but people are not here for

you to have fun with. Again you failed to answer anything. Your attempt to deflect and switch topics speaks volumes of your inability to debate an issue. Further, your other vulgarity laced posts suggests you are attempting to bait others into DU rules violations. Tisk Tisk.

Again I must ask:

The Canadian registration scheme is a colossal failure - unless the purpose was to waist large amounts money with no results.

"The "ballistic fingerprint" of a barrel changes through use, registering a "fingerprint" at time of manufacture is useless after a few hundred rounds. A barrel also has a finite life and is often changed. Oh, and "ballistic fingerprints" can be easily altered in short order. Why waste money on something that so clearly will do nothing in fighting crime?

A registration scheme will be of no more use than the current forward trace system in use. It has the same downfall, when firearms are stolen and enter the black market. It's just a giant waste of money that makes some people feel good."

So why would anyone in their right mind want to add another layer of BS laws that would be of no more use than what is already in place? I suspect that there is a motive other than fighting crime.

[iverglas]

535. gosh, I seem to be upsetting so many people

I have no clue what I said, but I guess somebody thought it was worth making sure nobody saw, and here you are repeating yourself at me now. Unless that wasn't me talking there. Who knows now?

You seem to have accused me of not talking about "ballistic fingerprinting". Maybe if you explained why I should have, I'll find some reason to.

The Canadian registration scheme is a colossal failure - unless the purpose was to waist large amounts money with no results.

From your lips to my ear, and out the other one. Pointless burble, no matter how many times you burble it.

A registration scheme will be of no more use than the current forward trace system in use.

Yeah? Does a fine job of deterring straw purchases, your scheme does, does it?

Yeah. Not.

So why would anyone in their right mind want to add another layer of BS laws that would be of no more use than what is already in place? I suspect that there is a motive other than fighting crime.

Oh, you caught us. We just like "waisting" taxpayer dollars.

Or we're not in our right minds.

Care to enlighten us as to what motive you have in mind? Or are you just, like, um, naturally suspicious?

[iverglas]

536. a little more help for you

This is one of my own main reasons for supporting a comprehensive firearms registry, together with mandatory licensing (and mandatory safe/secure storage).

http://www.caep.ca/template.asp?id=CF1C2F35673E427283575EABC9B995B0

Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians

- licensing works hand in hand with firearm registration to keep legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners. Because it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, registration helps prevent illegal sales or straw purchases to unlicensed (and potentially dangerous) individuals.

Simples. And there is simply no valid reason for any firearm owner to object to all firearms owners being required to register ownership/transfers of their firearms in order to reduce the risk of straw purchases / illegal transfers of firearms (and also thefts, because of the possibility of tracing and identification of improper storage practices).

[Name removed]

446. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sadena Meti]

474. There are nearly 500 posts to this thread, and almost half of them are mine.

It's got a life of its own now, I think I am going to give it a rest and cut back to once a day postings.

[Sadena Meti]

508. That's me for the day... see you tomorrow.

[Bold Lib]

513. It doesn't matter how many times you make a claim, you are still wrong

and have been proven so time and time again on this thread. Bu-By now, run along.

[Sadena Meti]

490. To Pro and Con posters, no more new posts on the firearm / vehicle analogy until you've read the...

existing ones, because there are at least 3 sub-threads on this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

511. "I have spoken. All depart!" n/t

[Bold Lib]

514. Translation: you lost that debate and don't want to discuss it anymore. LMFAO!

How Typical.

[cleanhippie]

527. Uh oh. Looks like the OP got his pizza!

[slackmaster]

529. LOL! That's one I don't have to put on Ignore.

:rofl:

[DissedByBush]

528. Let's register all speech too

Just like in communist countries.

Require ISPs to log all traffic, require Internet cafes to record the ID of every user.

Require printers to identify the source for everything printed.

Screw the Constitution.

[samjones]

538. The only solution is 100% registration.

100% Registration, 100% Responsibility

[PavePusher]

541. One-Hit Wonder? n/t

[eqfan592]

543. Yes, because of course, criminals will just line up and fall right in with this.

Sorry, but your naivety is truly astounding. But hey, thanks for the necro-thread. Goes good along with the zombie thread we have around here somewhere! :P

[Hoopla Phil]

545. This sounds familiar. . .hummmm. . .

[GreenStormCloud]

539. You have problems with the first Amendment don't you?

While you are outlawing the NRA are there any other organizations that you wish to outlaw? Why stop there?

Ballistics are easily changed. Simply clean the bore with a steel brush and then fire some rounds through the gun.

Registration accomplishes next to nothing in crime solving. Criminals aren't in the habit of leaving the gun at the crime scene. Usually when the gun is captured it is on the criminal at the time.

[Hoopla Phil]

546. Apparently this poster has lots of problems. . .

[GreenStormCloud]

548. Yeah. I posted before I noticed that this was a zombie thread. N/T

[PavePusher]

540. "Solution" to what? And how do you plan to enforce this?

"Know where every gun in America is at all times." Oh, you don't like the Fourth Amendment either.....

"And it will never happen unless the NRA is outlawed." And there goes the First.....

"And while we're at it, get a ballistic sample from every gun..." Easily defeated,and who pays for this? Let me guess, the gun owner.... Or in effect, a tax on a Civil Right. Wow, you're on a roll....

"If your gun is used in a crime, and it is still registered to you, and you haven't previously reported it lost or stolen, YOU are held responsible for the crime. Accessory to Murder." So much for trial by jury, eh? So much for the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. How long do I get to discover the crime and make the report?


I don't think you've really thought about this at all, but thanks for shilling the Brady Bunch. Good luck with that...



Edit: Awww crap, necro-thread. Damnit.

[Hoopla Phil]

547. The thread is not the only thing necroed.

[SteveW]

550. "And it will never happen unless the NRA is outlawed." You are "democratic?"

Do you advocate outlawing an organization, or are you merely suggesting that nothing will be done unless the NRA is outlawed?

What would you advocate if another group (say the GOA) were to absorb the membership of the NRA and continued 2A rights advocacy?

I'll wait for your answer.

[PavePusher]

555. Don't wait, O.P. has a headstone.... Unless you got some Snickers.... n/t