Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-19-2013, 08:24 PM #43
EgoManiacal
We'll make great pets.
 
EgoManiacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Green Line
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
Legislation requiring that I go to an FFL and pay money to submit to a background check and fill out a 4473 will not solve any problems, as criminals will continue to buy stolen and straw purchased firearms as they did before.
No, but it provides an avenue of prosecution for people who make straw purchases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV View Post
Our current laws hold people accountable for their actions with guns. A registration would not make anyone more accountable.
It would enable enforcement, which results in accountability.
__________________
Everything interesting happens in the frequency domain.
exp[iπ] = − 1
EgoManiacal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 02-19-2013, 09:27 PM #44
Bloodeagle
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoManiacal View Post
It would enable enforcement, which results in accountability.
Enforcement of what? Can you show any evidence that firearm registration would have stopped any of the mass killings that occurred during Obama's reign?
Bloodeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:37 PM #45
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoManiacal View Post
No, but it provides an avenue of prosecution for people who make straw purchases.
There already is an avenue of prosecution for straw purchases. Ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:37 PM #46
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoManiacal View Post
No, but it provides an avenue of prosecution for people who make straw purchases.
Like there already are?
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 09:41 PM #47
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
You have to remember you're arguing with people who know little to nothing about current firearm law.
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 10:28 PM #48
Bloodeagle
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volucris View Post
You have to remember you're arguing with people who know little to nothing about current firearm law.
And current left talking points don't cover this.
Bloodeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 10:36 PM #49
SevenGold-IV
Just the Tipp
 
SevenGold-IV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: State College, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoManiacal View Post
No, but it provides an avenue of prosecution for people who make straw purchases.
An avenue of prosecution for only the dumbest of straw buyers. Anyone with a file can remove the serial numbers used to register a gun. These guns will be reported as "lost or stolen" and turn up at crime scenes without any identifiable markings, and no way to be traced back to the straw buyer.

The ATF will still have to do things the old fashioned way: surveillance, testimony, or sting operation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoManiacal View Post
It would enable enforcement, which results in accountability.
The ATF currently catches and prosecutes straw buyers by enforcing existing laws. Or didn't you know that?
__________________
Woodsball: know your roots

Last edited by SevenGold-IV : 02-19-2013 at 10:51 PM.
SevenGold-IV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 11:48 PM #50
tmanbuckhunter
This Title is Red
 
tmanbuckhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV View Post
An avenue of prosecution for only the dumbest of straw buyers. Anyone with a file can remove the serial numbers used to register a gun. These guns will be reported as "lost or stolen" and turn up at crime scenes without any identifiable markings, and no way to be traced back to the straw buyer.

The ATF will still have to do things the old fashioned way: surveillance, testimony, or sting operation.



The ATF currently catches and prosecutes straw buyers by enforcing existing laws. Or didn't you know that?
Anyone with a set of letter/number stamps can also easily stamp on another serial number. I have a set, not for firearms though. Not that I would advise doing that in any way of course... just saying.
__________________
ST:A:MC: We love Harleys
DON'T RIDE A ****ING HARLEY, WE HATE HARLEYS
hurff durff umad
tmanbuckhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 12:09 AM #51
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
And that would solve what exactly?
I don't think this is a discussion that can be reasonable had around here. My only intention was to show the fallacy of assuming a necessary connection between registration and confiscation. I believe I have adequately done so.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 12:14 AM #52
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
What you're doing is trolling. We understand that you've had a course in logic and have your fallacies well memorized. However you fail to express any substance beyond your moderation of our discussion. We've shown you multiple examples of those pushing for registration also pushing for confiscation. You simply choose to be ignorant.

>shooting happens
>"we need gun registration"
>another shooting happens
"we need something better. how about we take these guns away."

They currently call it a "mandatory gun buyback program" because they're sleezy ****ers.

Last edited by Volucris : 02-20-2013 at 12:32 AM.
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 12:35 AM #53
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
I am not choosing to be ignorant of anything. In fact, my entire purpose of posting in this thread is to correct the ignorance first posited by you. You made the bull**** statement that confiscation necessarily follows from registration, but in reality it doesn't. In fact, more often than not confiscation does not follow from registration. Make a better argument or don't make one at all. Another person spreading bull**** is the last thing we need around here.

Quote:
What you're doing is trolling. We understand that you've had a course in logic and have your fallacies well memorized.
Ya, I have had courses in logic. Quite a bit actually. Problem is they make listening to illogical bull**** nearly unbearable. If you don't want me to criticize your poor logic, make more logical arguments. Relying on a **** notion like that is either ignorant or dishonest. Neither is helpful.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads

Last edited by TheSilentAssassin : 02-20-2013 at 12:40 AM.
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 12:49 AM #54
Volucris
asmuchtextastheywillallow
 
Volucris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Nashville
So because sometimes it does not, it is not to be feared?

Registration has led to confiscation in:
Canada. Handgun registration law of 1934 is the source being used to confiscate (without compensation) over ½ of the handguns in 2001.

Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens. It was called a "mandatory gun buyback".

It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and ‘registered’ owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

and: England, Zimbabwe, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and many more.

Don't forget about New Orleans recently where police and military units went door to door, forcefully confiscating firearms from citizens.

inb4 "godwin's law"
Volucris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 01:11 AM #55
$h@key J0nEZ
Pissing On
 
$h@key J0nEZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Your Parade
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I am not choosing to be ignorant of anything. In fact, my entire purpose of posting in this thread is to correct the ignorance first posited by you. You made the bull**** statement that confiscation necessarily follows from registration, but in reality it doesn't. In fact, more often than not confiscation does not follow from registration. Make a better argument or don't make one at all. Another person spreading bull**** is the last thing we need around here.


Ya, I have had courses in logic. Quite a bit actually. Problem is they make listening to illogical bull**** nearly unbearable. If you don't want me to criticize your poor logic, make more logical arguments. Relying on a **** notion like that is either ignorant or dishonest. Neither is helpful.
What's logical about knowingly surrendering your freedom to a government that can't even balance a budget?
__________________
$h@key J0nEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 06:17 AM #56
SevenGold-IV
Just the Tipp
 
SevenGold-IV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: State College, PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmanbuckhunter View Post
Anyone with a set of letter/number stamps can also easily stamp on another serial number. I have a set, not for firearms though. Not that I would advise doing that in any way of course... just saying.
Exactly. The supposed accountability provided by a gun registration can be so easily circumvented that I don't think it's worth the risk it poses to gun ownership.

Lets not forget that maintaining a gun registry is more expensive than its worth. New Zealand repealed its gun registration laws in 1983 because they were ineffective and a waste of police time. Canada just repealed its long gun registry for the same reason.
__________________
Woodsball: know your roots
SevenGold-IV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 08:42 AM #57
ElJefe13
 
 
ElJefe13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Utah
ElJefe13 has achieved Level 1 in PbNation Pursuit
ElJefe13 has achieved Level 2 in PbNation Pursuit
ElJefe13 supports Empire
Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV View Post

Exactly. The supposed accountability provided by a gun registration can be so easily circumvented that I don't think it's worth the risk it poses to gun ownership.

Lets not forget that maintaining a gun registry is more expensive than its worth. New Zealand repealed its gun registration laws in 1983 because they were ineffective and a waste of police time. Canada just repealed its long gun registry for the same reason.
I completely agree. Why waste our time and money fixing a problem with a solution that does nothing? Obviously political bull, but I wish we had politicians smart enough to save that kind of money and use it for something constructive.
ElJefe13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 09:08 AM #58
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I am not choosing to be ignorant of anything. In fact, my entire purpose of posting in this thread is to correct the ignorance first posited by you. You made the bull**** statement that confiscation necessarily follows from registration, but in reality it doesn't. In fact, more often than not confiscation does not follow from registration. Make a better argument or don't make one at all. Another person spreading bull**** is the last thing we need around here.


Ya, I have had courses in logic. Quite a bit actually. Problem is they make listening to illogical bull**** nearly unbearable. If you don't want me to criticize your poor logic, make more logical arguments. Relying on a **** notion like that is either ignorant or dishonest. Neither is helpful.
Registration will provide no appreciable benefit in terms of reducing violent crime or preventing illegal access to weapons. It will do nothing positive. Refer to the uselessness of the Canadian registry as well as those held by several US states.

Registration does, however, provide a means by which future confiscation can be facilitated. Why allow registration, which will be of no benefit whatsoever, to allow people like you to feel good about it when all it can do is permit confiscation further down the line?
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 09:24 AM #59
TheSilentAssassin
Words and Stuff
 
TheSilentAssassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volucris View Post
So because sometimes it does not, it is not to be feared?
Quote:
Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ View Post
What's logical about knowingly surrendering your freedom to a government that can't even balance a budget?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Pope View Post
Registration will provide no appreciable benefit in terms of reducing violent crime or preventing illegal access to weapons. It will do nothing positive. Refer to the uselessness of the Canadian registry as well as those held by several US states.

Registration does, however, provide a means by which future confiscation can be facilitated. Why allow registration, which will be of no benefit whatsoever, to allow people like you to feel good about it when all it can do is permit confiscation further down the line?
Seriously, can you all please just try to respond to what I am saying? This is getting us no where.
__________________
“There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don’t know it.” – G. K. Chesterton - The Mercy of Mr. Arnold Bennett, Fancies vs. Fads
TheSilentAssassin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 09:41 AM #60
Space Pope
 
 
Space Pope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
I am not choosing to be ignorant of anything. In fact, my entire purpose of posting in this thread is to correct the ignorance first posited by you. You made the bull**** statement that confiscation necessarily follows from registration, but in reality it doesn't. In fact, more often than not confiscation does not follow from registration. Make a better argument or don't make one at all. Another person spreading bull**** is the last thing we need around here.
And?

Registration facilitates any potential future confiscation while providing no benefit when it comes to reducing the availability of weapons or violent crime. Not to mention adding tremendous expense.

Why should we impliment such a thing? Just because?
Space Pope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 10:24 AM #61
Murph1329
 
 
Murph1329's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hoover, AL
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Seriously, can you all please just try to respond to what I am saying? This is getting us no where.
Do you not think the one writting the bill would use registration as a way to confiscate firearms?

You need to look past the bill and learn what these people are striving for. They'll push for policies that help them get their end goal. It my not be this administration that abuses the policies but that doesn't mean the policies can't be abused.

This is why gun owners are fighting these things hand over fist. They've seen the verbage taken out of existing bills, they've heard the words out of the policy writters' own mouths, and they've seen where complacency can get you.

There's no fallacy in this. There are enough gun grabbing crazy liberals that would LOVE to use registration as a way to single out firearm owners.

If you asked Nancy Pelsoi what she thought about registration I'm sure she'd say, it's a means to an end, not an end in itself.
__________________
'98 STO
10/14'' Dye Stainless | AKALMP tornado valve
Evolution bolt | Evolution Roller Sear
ANS Jackhammer | Rex Kit
STO RAM | Air America Black Ice | Shocktech LPC
pic
Forum defeat is admitted when one resorts to grammatical insults -me
We all live with a mark of sin, no man's is greater than another's in his own mind. -me

Last edited by Murph1329 : 02-20-2013 at 10:34 AM.
Murph1329 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 10:33 AM #62
Bloodeagle
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin View Post
Seriously, can you all please just try to respond to what I am saying? This is getting us no where.
Want to try doing what EgoManiacal could not do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodeagle View Post
Can you show any evidence that firearm registration would have stopped any of the mass killings that occurred during Obama's reign?
Bloodeagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 11:36 AM #63
EgoManiacal
We'll make great pets.
 
EgoManiacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Green Line
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodeagle View Post
Want to try doing what EgoManiacal could not do?
I have not once purported that gun control would address mass shootings. They are too rare and diverse in nature to sensibly address with sweeping policy. I'm interested in the over 16,000 firearm homicides comitted in 2010. Straw men make you sound like an idiot, don't do it.

I have a question for proponents of unfettered access here - how do criminals who shouldn't have them get guns? Clearly it is relatively easy. I know some of it is theft, but that's definitely not all of it, and I can't find any solid research on the issue (thanks NRA). Do we need to re-write the laws on PPT's?

Quote:
RECORD of FIREARMS TRANSFER BETWEEN UNLICENSED PERSONS
*Federal Law allows a person to transfer or acquire a firearm to or from an unlicensed resident of his/her State, if he/she does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. Federal Law sets the age of ownership for a Long Gun at 18 and a Handgun at 21.
What amounts to good faith seems like a dumb way to conduct these things, and IS completely unenforceable.

If your response to address illegal guns is to "better enforce the laws on the books", how would you propose doing so? What is happening now is clearly not working, how do we make it work better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV View Post
The ATF currently catches and prosecutes straw buyers by enforcing existing laws. Or didn't you know that?
The ATF has been hamstrung by the NRA into being an even more ineffective agency than it was when it started. It is too small and has been leaderless for years, in part because of ill-concieved actions in the past. The ATF is effectively useless for enforcement purposes, warranted or not.

So I ask again, how do we go about changing policy/enforcement agencies so they can effectively "enforce the laws on the books"?
__________________
Everything interesting happens in the frequency domain.
exp[iπ] = − 1

Last edited by EgoManiacal : 02-20-2013 at 12:04 PM.
EgoManiacal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump