PDA

View Full Version : Ban On Semi-Auto Guns - Petition



InlineSIX24
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 08:36 AM
Quick/easy petition to vote no on banning semi-auto guns. If you care about your 2nd amendment rights give it a signature.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/409898348#body


The attempt to renew and augment the expired federal "assault weapons ban", HR 1022, will not be tolerated.


This is NOT the cosmetic bill from the Clinton era and does NOT include
a sunset expiration, this one DOES ban many more guns, not just
features, going so far as to ban WWII era rifles such as the M1 Garand
and semi-automatic shotguns. Do your homework, learn about the details and contact your representative, act locally, raise awareness.

Get Involved: Legislative Action Center (http://capwiz.com/nssf/home/)

Learn about this bill: TownHall.com HR 1022 Article (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MarkMAlexander/2007/03/02/a_valentines_day_massacre_of_the_constitution) , Washington Watch Article (http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1022.html#toc0)

This petition and it's author is in no way affiliated with the
ACLU. I am an honorably discharged Marine, gun owner and rifle
range member. The host website is by charter a
non-partisan site, though they do carry many left leaning
petitions. If that makes you uncomfortable, start some right
leaning ones and get people on board.

RyNo24
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 08:44 AM
Just signed! Gun bans only take guns away from the innocent. The government really thinks that a semi-auto gun ban will stop crime. When England banned guns the death toll WENT UP, reason being people cannot defend themselves from the criminals who pick up guns on the black market. Gun bans will never solve the problem of illegal guns in the hands of bad people.

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 11:04 AM
Its not about guns. Its just about control.
I signed it and sent it to others too.

CYCLE_MONKEY
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 11:06 AM
Signed as well.

dragos13
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 11:11 AM
Signed

Snowman
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 11:33 AM
Signed

Now if they want to pass a law that will require a licensing system similar to motorcycles, I would be for that.

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 12:22 PM
Signed

Now if they want to pass a law that will require a licensing system similar to motorcycles, I would be for that.
I would be for that if it was for real machine guns and not semiauto guns that look like them.

Timmay
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 12:22 PM
I signed one last year too, but I will add to this one also.

Ghost
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 12:29 PM
Bans are stupid, criminals never register their stolen guns anyway, so what's the point?

Raptor
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 12:40 PM
I would be for that if it was for real machine guns and not semiauto guns that look like them.

They already have that. For both full-auto and supressors. Only issued after some deep government scrutiny of course but yeah, anyone with a clean record and the $ to fork for the permit can get them.

InlineSIX24
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 01:45 PM
If you get your FFL in order to have fully auto guns the government basically has the right to search/seize your property 24/7 without warning or warrant.

clustermagnet
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:30 PM
What would you say to making it much more difficult to attain one instead?

RyNo24
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:32 PM
As long as it does not keep guns out of the hands of the innocent I would be down. I have a clean record and plan on keeping it that way, so laws making it harder to get one would not effect me. Nut jobs and criminals do need to have a harder time to get guns, even though they can always turn to the black market and pick up guns at any time.


What would you say to making it much more difficult to attain one instead?

Snowman
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:42 PM
As long as it does not keep guns out of the hands of the innocent I would be down. I have a clean record and plan on keeping it that way, so laws making it harder to get one would not effect me. Nut jobs and criminals do need to have a harder time to get guns, even though they can always turn to the black market and pick up guns at any time.How about doing something to prove you can handle, whatever it is?

Let’s say you wanted a 155mm Howitzer to scare off those pesky squirrels off the back fence. What should you have to do to own one?

dragos13
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:43 PM
As long as it does not keep guns out of the hands of the innocent I would be down. I have a clean record and plan on keeping it that way, so laws making it harder to get one would not effect me. Nut jobs and criminals do need to have a harder time to get guns, even though they can always turn to the black market and pick up guns at any time.

we are talking about a BAN here, that would affect everyone.

The main issue is, we can't let the government take away our rights. Wether you have a clean record or not, they want to take away our right to own weapons. I just recently took my CCW class and plan to apply next week with the county. Nut jobs have ways to get fully auto weapons. Putting restrictions on them is only the first step to screwing the american people. I believe in my right to own a weapon and defend myself when needed. Props to everyone who is able to take a stand and make sure the government doesn't take away our rights. And for the people who argue that guns are bad, that is fine, dont own them. Just dont start thinking you can stop me from owning them. Not until you rid the world of crime, will I hand over my weapons.

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:53 PM
They already have that. For both full-auto and supressors. Only issued after some deep government scrutiny of course but yeah, anyone with a clean record and the $ to fork for the permit can get them.
Its insanely expensive. One has to be very wealthy to afford one of the machine guns now-a-days. The suppressors are still being made so its not so bad to get one of those.

To tell you the truth about gun control in my opinion.
Its a loser. It doesn't keep guns out of criminals hands. And more gun control only hurts the law abiding. If you every bought a Glock during the ban and wanted a magazine that it was designed for you know what I mean.

I think the only way to keep criminals and psycho's from using a gun illegally is to follow what the founding fathers meant when they said the peoples right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. They knew that an armed people was a polite one. Its not pretty but its better than losing a right forever because of other peoples actions. And even then its just a gamble there no guarantee that it would work. But there is evidence to show that tougher laws to the point where there is no point in having a gun or an outright ban have failed and made the situation a lot worse for everyone.

InlineSIX24
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:54 PM
Autos aside, they actually want to ban semi also. This means that the only legal civilian guns would be ones that you have to recock in between shots.

RyNo24
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 02:59 PM
This ban would take a lot guns out of the hands of people. Only hunting rifles, shot guns, and revolvers are not effected by this stupid ban. Again, they do not realize criminals will still get these semi-auto and full-auto guns without even going through a background check through illegal underground means. I will be very mad if this gets passed, cause I want my Desert Eagle!

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 03:26 PM
Catchphrases is all they are using to fool people. A little misinformation along with it and you are fooled.

A semi-automatic gun is self loading gun that fires only one shot per trigger pull.

A fully automatic is a gun that fires more than one shot per trigger pull either in a burst or until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammunition.

Fully automatics have been banned since 1934 when they used a couple of criminal acts as a basis for the law. e.g. Bonnie and Clyde, Ma Barker and few others.
The down side to this was that all people had to pay a $200 tax to register their machine gun or they had to turn them in. For a lot of people that was a lot of money back then and couldn't afford it. Then in 1986 they closed the registry from any new guns being registered atificially raising the prices on currently registered guns. The way that the criminals got the guns back in the 1930's was by stealing them from National guard Armories. They never bought the guns legally.
But the guns that they want to ban may look like their full auto cousins but are not and have never been machine guns. They will tell you that they can shoot like them in order ban them and people that don't know the difference will not know they are being lied to.
After they ban semi-autos because they look scary they won't stop there. To many guns still need banned before they are happy so they will move onto hunting weapons. They will simply call these sniper rifles. Shotguns they will call streetsweepers. Very scary sounding. Coming from those that want you to think that so it will be better just to ban them and be done with it. But its a slippery slope to ban all the guns and it always starts with the scariest guns and working your way down until they are all gone.


Now in Australia you have to show a reason for owning a simple bolt action .22 LR and saying its for target practice isn't a good enough reason. You have to need it for something greater than sport.

The Black Knight
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 04:03 PM
Signed and dated!! #42,586

I'm so glad people are finally waking up about the Second Amendment. That everyone is starting to get serious about it truely is great!

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 06:43 PM
Your welcome Black. You know I am there with you every step of the way.

And thank you very much inline6 for bringing this to my attention. I'm sure others are happy you did too. But I don't want to speak for others.

Did you see the one about a law in the works here in CO about locking up your safty? Err I mean guns.
SB08-049 I don't have the link but I have been writing Senators about it for 2 weeks now and I think some are going to vote against it but it maybe a party line thing.

The Black Knight
Tue Mar 4th, 2008, 07:10 PM
This ban would take a lot guns out of the hands of people. Only hunting rifles, shot guns, and revolvers are not effected by this stupid ban. Again, they do not realize criminals will still get these semi-auto and full-auto guns without even going through a background check through illegal underground means. I will be very mad if this gets passed, cause I want my Desert Eagle!

if I'm not mistaken from when I last read up on the new revised Gun Ban. But (D)Joe Biden one of the main authors of the original Brady Ban, wanted to put alot of "hunting" rifles on the new ban list. His reasoning? They can be used as "Sniper" weapons(well no sh** sherlock! I didn't know that hunting rifles were made for long distance shooting). By his definition, all gun long guns can be used as "Sniper' weapons.

Which is why now more then ever we need to fight this "revised" Brady Ban because(and this was as of last time I read up on it) they have added some 100+ guns to the list. Everything from .300 Ultra Mags & .375 H&H mags, to high capacity shotguns and of course high capacity handguns. Basically any gun that they are afraid of, made it to the list. But this was of last year when I first read up on it, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's changed to either add or get rid of some.

But last I heard, the new "revised" Brady Ban would hammer away at alot of firearms.

Oh and just another wonderful tidbit of knowledge. (D)Diane Feinstein of San Franciso(CA) one of the biggest anti-gunners out there. And also a main author of the "Assault Weapons" ban, is a Concealed Weapons Permit holder. Isn't that kind of defeating her purpose?? Hates guns, yet she has a permit to carry a gun?

And just so you don't think I'm only her to pile on Democrats. Mayor Mike Bloomberg(R) of New York who ran as a Republican, has since defected to Independent status is also a huge if not the #1 Anti-Gun person out there. This guy is a billionaire and loves to throw his money around to make things happen. He's been a huge backer of the "Assault Weapons" ban and for some reason has a raging hard-on for hatred of Handguns.

So now more then ever, we must vote to keep our gun rights. Because if we don't, jackasses like the ones mentioned will be getting their way. And we just can't have any of that....

rforsythe
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 07:52 AM
Autos aside, they actually want to ban semi also. This means that the only legal civilian guns would be ones that you have to recock in between shots.

I haven't RTFA yet, but are they wanting to ban even semi-auto handguns? Are they just talking about banning new sales, or actually stripping legal owners of their weapons?

Gun control is stupid. It's just a political buzzword asshats use to get or stay elected, because a lot of people out there freak out about it. Of course pro-gun advertising isn't likely to get far, though it would be interesting.

What if it were countered by education though? I'm talking full size billboards advocating the benefits of learning how to handle a firearm safely, taking courses (including CCW), etc. The whole "accident prevention" aspect that will appeal to the same people who don't understand the issue and will blindly vote for a ban. What would happen?

InlineSIX24
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 08:33 AM
I believe their primary focus right on is on new semi-auto sales, but these same parties have discussed confiscation from existing owners. That could likely follow but would probably never pass. Not being able to buy new would intolerable. Having existing semis reclaimed would be unthinkable.

Shea
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 08:48 AM
I believe their primary focus right on is on new semi-auto sales, but these same parties have discussed confiscation from existing owners. That could likely follow but would probably never pass. Not being able to buy new would intolerable. Having existing semis reclaimed would be unthinkable.

At that point there would be blood in the streets. Confiscation would spark violent resistance.

BrokenR1
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 09:34 AM
Signed

Now if they want to pass a law that will require a licensing system similar to motorcycles, I would be for that.

That's the same thing, it won't help. They'll just know who's door to knock on when it comes time to take them away. :banghead: Think criminals will register them?

Monkey
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 06:47 PM
Same shit.. different day. Guns are evil blah blah blah, the criminals only commit crimes with guns because they have access to them.. blah blah blah.. they would never use a knife or a bat.. or.. wait...

Mine will magically disappear before they are handed over..

The Black Knight
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 07:22 PM
Found a great link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:

details alot of what's in H.R. 1022, as in the requirements that make certain weapons illegal(under this ban).

Which if you read it closely, is alot of weapons out there.

here's another link with alot of info as well:
http://arepublic.blogspot.com/2007/02/hr-1022.html

InlineSIX24
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 07:40 PM
As stated - so much of the stuff in there is laughable;



(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

So its ok to have 10 10-round magazines, as long as you don't have 1 15-round magazine. Such crap.

The Black Knight
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 07:54 PM
As stated - so much of the stuff in there is laughable;



So its ok to have 10 10-round magazines, as long as you don't have 1 15-round magazine. Such crap.

I agree, the whole HR 1022 bill is completely stupid. It's amazing the gall they have to actually put something like that together. Then to expect people to believe in it.

I've come to the realization that Gun Control or Gun Ban legistlation is not about getting the guns. It's about Control, it's always been about control. The moronic framers of HR 1022 know full well that Gun Control or Bans have no affect on crime and know full well that it never works.

What it is, is fear. The government fears the people and rightly so. An armed populace is a grand army. An armed populace makes the policy and not the politicians. So in essence it is about getting the guns, so that they then may begin to institute full power and control over the populace.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we know full well from history what happens to cultures and people when their government disarms them. It's not soon after that extermination follows. My way or the Highway takes over...

DavidofColorado
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 08:42 PM
That bill bans the Tommy gun. Not only is that retarded because its a machine gun and not a semi-auto its not even made anymore.

The Black Knight
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 08:56 PM
That bill bans the Tommy gun. Not only is that retarded because its a machine gun and not a semi-auto its not even made anymore.

You can still get it in a Semi-Auto version made by Auto-Ordnance. So I would imagine that's the gun the ban would be after. Not to mention the real ones as well. However, if you can get on of those they are very rare and super expensive.

DavidofColorado
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Half way down it bans the Tommy Gun the 1919 and the 1927. (I don't know if I got the years right) but those are machine guns.
My uncle had the first year Tommy Gun and he sold it for 30k. I never got to shoot it but my dad did.
The one in the ban talks about banning the same ones. Not the newer versions. It seems like they flipped open a gun magazine and started picking the guns that look or sound scary and put them on the list of things to ban. Sounds crazy right? That is exactly what they did with the first Clinton gun ban.

wulf
Wed Mar 5th, 2008, 11:54 PM
As stated - so much of the stuff in there is laughable;



So its ok to have 10 10-round magazines, as long as you don't have 1 15-round magazine. Such crap.
It'll also make it illegal to sell a mag that holds over 10 rounds with a firearm capable of using it. Even though the mags and the firearm are grandfathered.

"(z) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'."

Raptor
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 07:17 AM
I'm totally convinced that the legislators are as aware of the holes in their reasoning as we are. In light of that, we may want to focus less on the smoke screen logic these laws are introduced upon and focus more on why our legislators want us unarmed, weakened and defenseless?

Raptor
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 07:35 AM
Here's something to consider...

If these laws are being introduced in the interest of preservation of life, then tell me something, why aren't the same people proposing an almost absolutist set of laws against firearms crying out against the fact that tobacco or alcohol are legal? I mean, they're all regulated by the same federal agency. I wonder what the alcohol and tobacco death - to - American, firearms death ratio is??
I do not have the right to responsibly arm myself to protect my home and family but I must be subjected to about two-dozen designer medication commercials per hour flat out telling me that by taking FDA regulated drugs to improve my "quality" of life, I run the risk of heart attack, liver failure or death?! I'm only allowed to risk my health and safety by federally approved means?!

No one will ever convince me that the obliteration of our constitutional rights is necessary for the cause of public safety. There is an agenda at work, just not the one they want us to believe.

cu360r6
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Many here seem to think that all gun control legislation doesn't work because criminals will still get guns somehow, but no one seems to think where these 'illegal guns' started out. The US is the largest makers of weapons, and there are few illegal weapons importation, so almost all the illegal or legal guns in our country were made domestically. This means that at sometime all guns were legally made, and they became illegal sometime in their chain of ownership. As responsible gun owners we should be supporting measures that help reduce guns descending from legal to illegal owners because this will take away any political or public will to restrict guns any further. Registration requirements for each gun sale and holding owners civilly liable for crimes committed with their guns would help to reduce illegal guns and prevent criminals from acquiring them. No responsible gun owner should oppose these measures because they wouldn't infringe on your ability to own a legal weapon and with far fewer gun deaths the image of gun owners would be substantially improved.

rforsythe
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 04:24 PM
holding owners civilly liable for crimes committed with their guns

So you're saying if I am a registered owner of a gun that gets stolen, I should be financially responsible to the family of whoever gets killed with it 3 months later? If I think I'm selling it legitimately to someone else and they go shoot some old lady, I should be able to get sued for someone else's poor life choices?

No offense dude, but fuck that.

dragos13
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 04:29 PM
So you're saying if I am a registered owner of a gun that gets stolen, I should be financially responsible to the family of whoever gets killed with it 3 months later? If I think I'm selling it legitimately to someone else and they go shoot some old lady, I should be able to get sued for someone else's poor life choices?

No offense dude, but fuck that.

If it gets stolen, then you report it stolen right?

If you sell it to someone you "think" is legitimate, and they end up shooting someone, you are the one that put the gun in the hand of the criminal. thats what we are wanting to stop right? when you sell a gun, have then go to a dealer and do a background check. otherwise, you have no clue where that gun is going or what it'll be used for. Personally, I think he has a good idea.

The Black Knight
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 04:32 PM
Many here seem to think that all gun control legislation doesn't work because criminals will still get guns somehow, but no one seems to think where these 'illegal guns' started out. The US is the largest makers of weapons, and there are few illegal weapons importation, so almost all the illegal or legal guns in our country were made domestically. This means that at sometime all guns were legally made, and they became illegal sometime in their chain of ownership. As responsible gun owners we should be supporting measures that help reduce guns descending from legal to illegal owners because this will take away any political or public will to restrict guns any further. Registration requirements for each gun sale and holding owners civilly liable for crimes committed with their guns would help to reduce illegal guns and prevent criminals from acquiring them. No responsible gun owner should oppose these measures because they wouldn't infringe on your ability to own a legal weapon and with far fewer gun deaths the image of gun owners would be substantially improved.

Yeah, in a perfect fictional world that actually might fly.

However, if I sell a gun via the "for sale ads" or to someone I know. Then say they go and use it for a crime. I'll be damned if you're going to hold me liable for something they did.

Further more, how can you hold me liable for a crime someone else commits using my gun, if say they stole it from me. Either by home burglary or breaking into my vehicle??

Of course "Responsible" gun owners would,should and will oppose any measure of this nature, because it's the scapegoat rule.
Scapegoat Rule:
"well, we can't find who did the crime but since we found the gun at the scene, lets blame the guy who the gun belongs too."
Or better yet
"well, we caught the guy in the act with a gun that 'used' to belong to you, so since he did the crime, now you get to do the time."

Makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'm also still scatching my head as to how US gun manufactures, manage to churn out illegal weapons. Last time I checked, they aren't allowed to produce weapons that are illegal. Oh but that's right, every gun they do produce is legal; even if it is a full auto weapon. Why? because if you obtain the proper paper work and have gone through all of the necessary background investigations, you then can legally own full auto weapons.

By the way it is a Federal law that you cannot sell a full automatic weapon to someone who has not obtained their clearance. Guys with FFL's know this all to well, since the KGB I mean ATF randomly love to do searches of their business and homes.

Like I've said before,

owning firearms are part of our Bill of Rights. If I decide to sell a gun, I shouldn't have to do a background check on someone if I don't want to. Why because it's also a Right. It's like buying a Car. No one runs a background check on you in order to buy a vehicle. Credit check, but not a FBI check. And driving is a privilege and not a right.

Last time I checked, I could jump behind the wheel of a big diesel 3500 and mow down a whole lot more people then I ever could with a AR15 or M16. Crazy thing is, you would never stop a big truck from smokin down a crowd full of people.

So to refresh, vehicles are a "privilege" yet not regulated as to who can own one. If you've got the money you can buy it. Guns on the other hand are a "Right" guranteed by the Constitution.

And I know what you're going to say. So if some guy comes to me and buys a gun from a private sale, knowing full well that he can't get one from a Gun Store, it is illegal. Yeah it's illegal for "HIM" not me. Because I'm going on his good faith that he can own a gun. If he gets caught with it, then it should be "HIM" that gets punished. Not the previous gun owner.

Finally, are you going to hold car dealerships accountable if someone buys some big honkin dually, then turns right around and mows down a crowd of people?? Of course you're not. Why? because that would be a frivilous and stupid accusation. However, alot of people seem to think that kind of bullshit would fly against a legal gun owner.

I'm failing to see your reasoning...

TFOGGuys
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 04:49 PM
If it gets stolen, then you report it stolen right?

If you sell it to someone you "think" is legitimate, and they end up shooting someone, you are the one that put the gun in the hand of the criminal. thats what we are wanting to stop right? when you sell a gun, have then go to a dealer and do a background check. otherwise, you have no clue where that gun is going or what it'll be used for. Personally, I think he has a good idea.

Gotta go with Ralph on this one. If I sell a golf club to someone that I believe is going to use it to play golf, and they decide to cave their girlfriend's head in with it instead,somehow I'M liable? A gun is a tool, with legitimate uses (including self defense). If someone chooses to use that tool for an illegal purpose, that is their responsibility, NOT mine.

dragos13
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 04:54 PM
OK, then everyone can keep buying guns, selling them to whoever they want, and stop complaining when we are faced with bans due to criminal mis-use of weapons.

I think the point was, the trouble starts with the owners. Are you liable when you sell a car or a golf club, no. However, no one is threatening to stop sales or ban cars. since this is an issue with weapons, i think Charles has good insight on how to stop the problem before it starts.

Ralph, Jim, what are your opinions to help this issue? its easy to talk shit about what others say, so how would each of you go about keeping guns free from bans, etc?

rforsythe
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:04 PM
If it gets stolen, then you report it stolen right?

If you sell it to someone you "think" is legitimate, and they end up shooting someone, you are the one that put the gun in the hand of the criminal. thats what we are wanting to stop right? when you sell a gun, have then go to a dealer and do a background check. otherwise, you have no clue where that gun is going or what it'll be used for. Personally, I think he has a good idea.

What if it gets stolen before I realize it is? Not my crime.
If I think someone is legit, whether I sold the gun or not is irrelevant, I didn't kill anyone with it. Not my crime.

I should not be liable in any way for the actions of another, just because I once owned a device (legally transferred or not) that they then used to kill someone. That's like saying if I sell my truck to someone who then uses it to plow down a bunch of kids in a schoolyard, that I should somehow be liable for them doing that, because I put the keys in the hand of the criminal.

If I knowingly sell a gun, or a truck, or anything else to someone who intends to use it for a crime then I can see being liable - and we already have laws on the books to cover those actions, it's called being an accessory. However you cannot hold someone responsible for a crime they didn't commit, and that is exactly what he is proposing.

I think his idea is bad, even dangerous. And I think anyone agreeing with it is seriously disillusioned.

TFOGGuys
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:07 PM
Many here seem to think that all gun control legislation doesn't work because criminals will still get guns somehow, but no one seems to think where these 'illegal guns' started out. The US is the largest makers of weapons, and there are few illegal weapons importation, so almost all the illegal or legal guns in our country were made domestically. This means that at sometime all guns were legally made, and they became illegal sometime in their chain of ownership. As responsible gun owners we should be supporting measures that help reduce guns descending from legal to illegal owners because this will take away any political or public will to restrict guns any further. Registration requirements for each gun sale and holding owners civilly liable for crimes committed with their guns would help to reduce illegal guns and prevent criminals from acquiring them. No responsible gun owner should oppose these measures because they wouldn't infringe on your ability to own a legal weapon and with far fewer gun deaths the image of gun owners would be substantially improved.

I don' even know where to start with this one. First and foremost, criminals don't follow the law. DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and one of the highest violent gun crime rates, mostly because the criminals know that the chance of their victim being able to defend themselves is next to nil. Gun registration is a route that inevitably leads to confiscation, but again, only the law abiding are affected. You need only look to the UK and Australia for evidence that this flat doesn't work.After general firearms bans were enacted there, gun crime rose dramatically, again because the criminals knew that their victims were unlikely to resist effectively. Holding the seller civilly liable is just stupid, it makes about as much sense as holding a grocery store owner liable for selling beer to someone , who weeks or months later kills someone as a result of drunk driving. The "responsible gun owner" is actually in favor of enforcing laws that are already on the books that punish those that commit crimes with guns, not placing more needless restrictions on the transfer of legally owned firearms between honest citizens.

rforsythe
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Ralph, Jim, what are your opinions to help this issue? its easy to talk shit about what others say, so how would each of you go about keeping guns free from bans, etc?

By just not banning them?

A gun doesn't commit a crime. Criminals commit crimes. If there's one thing my line of work (computer security) has taught me, it's that ill-tempted humans are creative people, and when you remove one means to an end they will simply find another.

Stop crime at the source (criminal behavior) and the gun-related crimes are no longer a factor. Stop people from drinking and driving, and DUI's are no longer a factor. Bottom line is, the issue is at it's core a human condition. Guns are just a tool used to facilitate that, but I guarantee you that if someone wants to kill you, they'll find a way. Banning guns is just going to force them to spend an extra 5 seconds coming up with another way.

dragos13
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Stop crime at the source (criminal behavior) and the gun-related crimes are no longer a factor. Stop people from drinking and driving, and DUI's are no longer a factor. Bottom line is, the issue is at it's core a human condition. Guns are just a tool used to facilitate that, but I guarantee you that if someone wants to kill you, they'll find a way. Banning guns is just going to force them to spend an extra 5 seconds coming up with another way.

Now thats what i wanted to hear.

Trust me, I'm the last person who wants bans on anything. I completly agree that responsible owners can and should be able to carry and possess weapons. I own two Pit Bulls which I can't bring to Denver County due to the many idiots who have irresponsibly owned them. I think the person who committed the crime should be punished, but thats not always how our government works. The problem I have is the fact that soon, even law-abiding americans will be screwed because some criminal messed up. So what do we do, just increase gun charges and penalties? A criminal wont care. Ban semi-autos? Once again, the criminal will own one.

I think if every eligible citizen obtained his CCW, and every one of them practiced carrying, then crime would decrease. The criminal would think twice about trying to car jack someone, cuz they might get shot. I also feel every owner should be responsible for the weapons they purchase. Sure you can sell your gun to anyone, but if we start requesting background checks on personal sales, thats just one more avenue the criminal can't take. But, we as americans are lazy, and dont want to hassle with that. I dont know about you, but if I sold my gun and it was later used to mow down 10 school kids, I would have guilt on my concious.

The Black Knight
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:14 PM
Ralph, Jim, what are your opinions to help this issue? its easy to talk shit about what others say, so how would each of you go about keeping guns free from bans, etc?

though I'm not Ralph or Jim. I'll answer your question.

Problem: criminals commit crimes with guns they get. Either in black market or via private sales. They then use guns to commit a whole slew of crimes. Many of which are home invasions, rape and murders.

Solution: Having a heavily armed and well trained populace. People being able to defend themselves against would be assailants. People being able to not be afraid to go outside or work late for fear of those lurking in the shadows. Having a armed and well trained populace, only helps Law Enforcement. Because, then Cops don't have to run to every call of someone getting mugged or beaten or raped or the eventual murder. People could then protect themselves and others from criminals.

Remember, criminals know what they are up against with Cops and other Law Enforcement. Criminals have no clue as to whether half the parking lot at your local Walmart is full of legal and law abiding gun owners, carrying for their protection.

It's like being stuck in a room with a Cobra. What's worse being the room with the lights on? or being in the room with the lights off? Criminals can see cops, they can't see your average citizen and know what they are up against...

Shea
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:20 PM
... so how would each of you go about keeping guns free from bans, etc?

Not voting for liberals....

TFOGGuys
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:21 PM
Ralph, Jim, what are your opinions to help this issue? its easy to talk shit about what others say, so how would each of you go about keeping guns free from bans, etc?
It's simple. Kohlberg came up with a scale of the stages of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development) that makes it clear. If you can't motivate these criminals to change their ways through the higher stages of ethical development, take it back to Stage one: How can I avoid punishment? I say make prisons unpleasant places to be again: Hard labor, no TV, etcetera. Punish violent criminals in such a way that they think long and hard before returning to a life of crime. If they repeatedly make wrong choices, remove them from the general population permanently. Most of us have a well developed sense of right and wrong, and choose to do right BECAUSE we feel it is ethically superior. Don't punish those of us that follow the rules for the actions of those that do not.

TFOGGuys
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:27 PM
Now thats what i wanted to hear.

I also feel every owner should be responsible for the weapons they purchase. Sure you can sell your gun to anyone, but if we start requesting background checks on personal sales, thats just one more avenue the criminal can't take.

As a side note, you can obtain a criminal background check for anyone that you are selling a weapon (or car, or golf club) online from the CBI for about $7. Colorado Bureau of Investigation (https://www.cbirecordscheck.com/CBI_New/CBI_newIndex.asp) . I personally won't sell a gun to someone that I feel I HAVE to run a check on.....

rforsythe
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:29 PM
I personally won't sell a gun to someone that I feel I HAVE to run a check on.....

Like canadians?

InlineSIX24
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:30 PM
...No responsible gun owner should oppose these measures because they wouldn't infringe on your ability to own a legal weapon and with far fewer gun deaths the image of gun owners would be substantially improved.

Yes this legislation would infringe on our rights to own a semi-auto gun and a gun with a magazine over 10 rounds. I'm not ok with being 'able' to own a gun that has a ten round or a one round magazine. I would look forward to that as much as if I had to carry a horn full of gunpowder on my side and some packing cloth. The verbiage and terms they are trying to pass are ridiculous.

DavidofColorado
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:33 PM
Not voting for liberals....
That's true.
Take the word gun out of it. Do you think you should be responsible for someone that buys a book off or you and then uses it in a crime?

It really isn't the guns fault that it was used in a crime either. Its the scumbag criminal that misused it. Its inanimate and its not going to commit crimes on its own. For the rest of us having a gun is only dangerous to cans and paper. I don't want to get my guns banned for what someone else does with their guns. Bans don't work and if they did you would find the criminal wanting to do harm using something else like a table leg.

TFOGGuys
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:44 PM
Like canadians?

:canuck: AND THE FRENCH!!

Seriously, I have turned down cash from someone that wanted to buy a gun from me because something didn't "feel" right about the sale.

ChrisCBX
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:46 PM
I've only sold one gun over the years (senior year of college) and only sold it because I was desperate for book money. I've always been concerned (on a personal basis) about selling my guns and who I should sell them to. For my individual situation, I solved this issue by being careful what guns I buy and understanding that I'll have them forever.

I realize that this isn't practical but one of my gun loving nephews will someday get a very interesting inheiritance.

rforsythe
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 05:51 PM
:canuck: AND THE FRENCH!!

Seriously, I have turned down cash from someone that wanted to buy a gun from me because something didn't "feel" right about the sale.

I'd do the same thing. Go with your gut.

Shea
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 06:10 PM
I'd do the same thing. Go with your gut.

Yeah, that chick Sully was interested in my gun and I said no...just didn't feel right. ;)

cu360r6
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 06:35 PM
Yes this legislation would infringe on our rights to own a semi-auto gun and a gun with a magazine over 10 rounds. I'm not ok with being 'able' to own a gun that has a ten round or a one round magazine. I would look forward to that as much as if I had to carry a horn full of gunpowder on my side and some packing cloth. The verbiage and terms they are trying to pass are ridiculous.
Either you didn't get past that sentence in my post or you are trying to distort my position, but I specifically addressed my opinion at legislation other than specific bans, legislation that would not infringe on your rights at all.

You guys keep saying criminals get guns like they fall from the sky, and there is nothing we can do about it, but since they're not making their own weapons they're getting them from somewhere that legally manufactured them. Stopping the point of sale from legal to illegal is where legislation should be targeted instead. If you guys want I can give you some concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

The 'liberals' you guys talk about don't want to ban all guns. They want to end gun crimes. If the gun lobby was willing to work to find solutions that would prevent illegal gun sales while not infringing on legal gun owner's rights all the talk about banning specific weapons would disappear. Since the NRA has refused to compromise on even the most reasonable legislation aimed at criminals lawmakers have to go about gun control from another route a la specific bans. Being so absolutist is only going to engender more opposition and give gun owners a more divisive imag while reducing gun crime is beneficial top both sides.

cu360r6
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Seriously, I have turned down cash from someone that wanted to buy a gun from me because something didn't "feel" right about the sale.

That's awesome. If all gun sellers were that responsible there would be far fewer gun crimes.

Priller_Nate
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 07:41 PM
Signed

InlineSIX24
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 07:44 PM
Either you didn't get past that sentence in my post or you are trying to distort my position, but I specifically addressed my opinion at legislation other than specific bans, legislation that would not infringe on your rights at all..

Well maybe I misunderstood you but it did say "No responsible gun owner should oppose these measures", which I would take to mean the current legislation which contains those bans (ie. their current measures). I can't agree w/ the liberals and think they are going about it the wrong way.

DavidofColorado
Thu Mar 6th, 2008, 11:16 PM
That's awesome. If all gun sellers were that responsible there would be far fewer gun crimes.
a. Guns don't commit crimes.
b. No there wouldn't because in DC there is more murders than Baghdad. And across the state line in Virginia where there is a right to carry there is far less murders. If only they would have let CCW on campuses we could have prevented a tragedy.
c. stopping any feel good law against a right now matter how warm and fuzzy it makes the liberals feel is worth it. One can't trade security for freedom. And that is what its all about too, freedom. Not asking for permission to have a gun and not asking for permission to sell one.

Its a protection of ones inalienable rights. Not a privilege handed out by the .gov.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 12:58 AM
Using DC as your only example is misleading. DC proper has many other factors such as rampant poverty and low average education that have far more to do with the high level of crime than gun legislation. The fact that crime levels in VA are significantly less has more to do with higher average income and education levels in the suburbs. Other cites that also have very restrictive gun laws like San Francisco do not have similar crime problems as DC, so that example is just cited by the gun lobby looking for a stereotype.

You have to have a license to drive, but no one is claiming that this restricts your privilege of driving does it? You have to register all land sales, but no one is saying this restricts your right to sell your property? Reasonable limits on weapons won't affect law abiding gun owners like us any more than the two examples I just gave.

As long as the gun lobby is so absolutist in compromising on nothing there will continue to be legislation like the one in this thread. If you want to prevent this huffing and puffing and drawing a line in the sand isn't going to take away the political will.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 12:59 AM
a. Guns don't commit crimes.


Sales like the one you cited are the number one way criminals get weapons: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

" In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales..."
"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen."

Reasonable penalties for legal gun owners who negligently allow thier guns to get into criminal hands would prevent a lot of this: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Retail-giant-fined-19m-for-illegal-gun-sales/2005/01/06/1104832226789.html

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 11:12 AM
Either you didn't get past that sentence in my post or you are trying to distort my position, but I specifically addressed my opinion at legislation other than specific bans, legislation that would not infringe on your rights at all.

You guys keep saying criminals get guns like they fall from the sky, and there is nothing we can do about it, but since they're not making their own weapons they're getting them from somewhere that legally manufactured them. Stopping the point of sale from legal to illegal is where legislation should be targeted instead. If you guys want I can give you some concrete examples of what I'm talking about.

The 'liberals' you guys talk about don't want to ban all guns. They want to end gun crimes. If the gun lobby was willing to work to find solutions that would prevent illegal gun sales while not infringing on legal gun owner's rights all the talk about banning specific weapons would disappear. Since the NRA has refused to compromise on even the most reasonable legislation aimed at criminals lawmakers have to go about gun control from another route a la specific bans. Being so absolutist is only going to engender more opposition and give gun owners a more divisive imag while reducing gun crime is beneficial top both sides.

Imagine if you had to register to exercise your right to Free Speech, or Freedom to practice(or NOT to practice) your religion. Why would this be less acceptable than a license to exercise any of your other Constitutional rights?

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 11:27 AM
Sales like the one you cited are the number one way criminals get weapons: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

" In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales..."


Already illegal under Federal law. Please refer to previous comments on enforcing laws already on the books.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Imagine if you had to register to exercise your right to Free Speech, or Freedom to practice(or NOT to practice) your religion. Why would this be less acceptable than a license to exercise any of your other Constitutional rights?

You didn't address my examples at all. If you can't show an infringement then I don't see the problem. Countering my point with other examples doesn't negate the fact that licenses and registration in other areas hasn't impeded freedom at all.


Already illegal under Federal law. Please refer to previous comments on enforcing laws already on the books.
Can you cite a statute because I don't believe that's true. In fact, in 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft barred the FBI from reviewing any gun purchase records associated with a crime.

InlineSIX24
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 12:18 PM
..You have to have a license to drive, but no one is claiming that this restricts your privilege of driving does it? You have to register all land sales, but no one is saying this restricts your right to sell your property? Reasonable limits on weapons won't affect law abiding gun owners like us any more than the two examples I just gave..

The problem is still the terms they are trying to pass along with it. If you want to compare to a vehicle then it would be like them saying 'its ok for you get that 500cc motorcycle, but you can't purchase that 1000cc bike'. So enjoy riding your 500cc grocery getter while we keep you safe from yourself.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 12:42 PM
I'm not talking about this legislation with specific weapons bans, but rather licensing or registration of sales. Being opposed to any and all gun control legislation no matter how helpful in reducing crime and no matter how unrestrictive to lawful gun owners is extreme by definition. If you're opposed to this bill that won't pass anyway fine, but you guys seem opposed to any bill with the word gun in it at all. Absolutism is rarely moderate or constructive.

InlineSIX24
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 01:48 PM
I don't think the majority of people on here are opposed to regulations in general. You have to have your FFL to own anything automatic. You have to be licensed to concealed carry. You have to go through the background check and notify the government when you purchase a gun. Thats all fine, but there is a point where you draw the line. Microstamping bullets and over-bureaucracy etc. is what gets people ruffled.

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 01:49 PM
You didn't address my examples at all. If you can't show an infringement then I don't see the problem. Countering my point with other examples doesn't negate the fact that licenses and registration in other areas hasn't impeded freedom at all.


Can you cite a statute because I don't believe that's true. In fact, in 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft barred the FBI from reviewing any gun purchase records associated with a crime.

18 USC Chapter 44, SS 922.

My opinion: Licenses are for acts that are privileges, not for guaranteed rights. If you had to register to avoid unreasonable searches and seizure of you belongings, or to practice free speech or religion, the whole country would be screaming bloody murder. But because it's a gun issue, and many people are not "gun people", some feel it is ok to abridge the rights of gun ownership and usage. This mentality leads only to the erosion of ALL of our guaranteed rights. No matter how "reasonable" the infringement sounds to you, it is an offense against the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free citizens of this country, and should NOT be tolerated, especially by those that avail themselves of certain other rights, like freedom of speech and expression. Remember, when a dam fails, it usually does so very slowly at first, a small leak that gradually increases, until it suddenly washes out.

InlineSIX24
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 01:54 PM
Bingo... Heres where we are now..

http://gsl.erdc.usace.army.mil/newimages/leak1.jpg

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 02:06 PM
I figure after the Patri(di)ot Act, we're more like here:
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/about/Teton4.gif

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 02:33 PM
In fact, in 2002 Attorney General Ashcroft barred the FBI from reviewing any gun purchase records associated with a crime.

Incorrect.

[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7), 27 CFR 478.25a]
What is my responsibility to respond to a request to trace a firearm?

A licensee must provide the requested information immediately and in no event later than 24 hours after receipt of a request by ATF. Failure to respond to the request for trace information can result in monetary fines, imprisonment, and/or revocation of the licensee’s Federal firearms license.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 03:02 PM
18 USC Chapter 44, SS 922.

My opinion: Licenses are for acts that are privileges, not for guaranteed rights. If you had to register to avoid unreasonable searches and seizure of you belongings, or to practice free speech or religion, the whole country would be screaming bloody murder. But because it's a gun issue, and many people are not "gun people", some feel it is ok to abridge the rights of gun ownership and usage. This mentality leads only to the erosion of ALL of our guaranteed rights. No matter how "reasonable" the infringement sounds to you, it is an offense against the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free citizens of this country, and should NOT be tolerated, especially by those that avail themselves of certain other rights, like freedom of speech and expression. Remember, when a dam fails, it usually does so very slowly at first, a small leak that gradually increases, until it suddenly washes out.

That section of the US code is over 43 pages long. Do you have an actual cite to the part you're referring to? Also, what are you claiming is already illegal specifically? I didn't mention a particular requirement or piece of legislation before you said this, so what exactly is not being enforced in your opinion?

Once again, the right to real property is as fundamental as the right to bear arms and requiring registration of land sales has hardly infringed on anyone's ability to sell or buy land.

In 217 years since the adoption of our Constitution that hasn't been a single examples of the federal government taking away guns from law abiding citizens, so you're slippery slope argument doesn't seem to be backed up by much besides a constant fear in spite of the facts. Many gun owners seem to share a this constant fear, but without any history or attempts to restrict our right to bear arms this seems to be irrational at best.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 03:06 PM
[quote=TFOGGuys;276073]Incorrect.
[18 U.S.C. 923(g)(7)]

Correct! You forgot the phrase "as the Attorney General may require." It allows the AG to have discretion which Ashcroft refused to exercise. In the ATF regulations the single word "may" changes the entire enforcement. It allows the turning over of information to be discretionary, not mandatory. The difference between may and shall is really large if you're talking about CC legislation as well.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 03:09 PM
I don't think the majority of people on here are opposed to regulations in general. You have to have your FFL to own anything automatic. You have to be licensed to concealed carry. You have to go through the background check and notify the government when you purchase a gun. Thats all fine, but there is a point where you draw the line. Microstamping bullets and over-bureaucracy etc. is what gets people ruffled.

So we don't need anymore legislation to prevent gun shops like this one from being prosecuted?: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Ret...832226789.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Retail-giant-fined-19m-for-illegal-gun-sales/2005/01/06/1104832226789.html)
There are many other gun stores out there selling to criminals without fear of retribution because they don't have to register and record each sale under criminal and civil penalties. Restricting them won't infringe any individual gun owner's freedom.

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 03:30 PM
Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart C—Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions
Browse Previous (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=1bcbef41e975a906edf2abdc5284090b;rg n=div8;view=text;node=27%3A3.0.1.2.3.3.1.5;idno=27 ;cc=ecfr) | Browse Next (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=1bcbef41e975a906edf2abdc5284090b;rg n=div8;view=text;node=27%3A3.0.1.2.3.3.1.7;idno=27 ;cc=ecfr)

§ 478.25a Responses to requests for information.

Each licensee shall respond immediately to, and in no event later than 24 hours after the receipt of, a request by an ATF officer at the National Tracing Center for information contained in the records required to be kept by this part for determining the disposition of one or more firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. The requested information shall be provided orally to the ATF officer within the 24-hour period. Verification of the identity and employment of National Tracing Center personnel requesting information may be established at the time the requested information is provided by telephoning the toll-free number 1–800–788–7132 or using the toll-free facsimile (FAX) number 1–800–578–7223.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512–0387)[T.D. ATF–363, 60 FR 17451, Apr. 6, 1996, as amended by T.D. ATF–396, 63 FR 12646, Mar. 16, 1998]



PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart H—Records
Browse Previous (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=1bcbef41e975a906edf2abdc5284090b;rg n=div8;view=text;node=27%3A3.0.1.2.3.8.1.3;idno=27 ;cc=ecfr) | Browse Next (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=1bcbef41e975a906edf2abdc5284090b;rg n=div8;view=text;node=27%3A3.0.1.2.3.8.1.5;idno=27 ;cc=ecfr)

§ 478.124 Firearms transaction record.

(a) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not sell or otherwise dispose, temporarily or permanently, of any firearm to any person, other than another licensee, unless the licensee records the transaction on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473: Provided, That a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.
(b) A licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer shall retain in alphabetical (by name of purchaser), chronological (by date of disposition), or numerical (by transaction serial number) order, and as a part of the required records, each Form 4473 obtained in the course of transferring custody of the firearms.
(c)(1) Prior to making an over-the-counter transfer of a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, the licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer so transferring the firearm shall obtain a Form 4473 from the transferee showing the transferee's name, sex, residence address (including county or similar political subdivision), date and place of birth; height, weight and race of the transferee; the transferee's country of citizenship; the transferee's INS-issued alien number or admission number; the transferee's State of residence; and certification by the transferee that the transferee is not prohibited by the Act from transporting or shipping a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce or receiving a firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce or possessing a firearm in or affecting commerce.
(2) In order to facilitate the transfer of a firearm and enable NICS to verify the identity of the person acquiring the firearm, ATF Form 4473 also requests certain optional information. This information includes the transferee's social security number. Such information may help avoid the possibility of the transferee being misidentified as a felon or other prohibited person.
(3) After the transferee has executed the Form 4473, the licensee:
(i) Shall verify the identity of the transferee by examining the identification document (as defined in §478.11) presented, and shall note on the Form 4473 the type of identification used;
(ii) Shall, in the case of a transferee who is an alien legally in the United States, cause the transferee to present documentation establishing that the transferee is a resident of the State (as defined in §478.11) in which the licensee's business premises is located, and shall note on the form the documentation used. Examples of acceptable documentation include utility bills or a lease agreement which show that the transferee has resided in the State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the transfer of the firearm; and
(iii) Must, in the case of a transferee who is a nonimmigrant alien who states that he or she falls within an exception to, or has a waiver from, the nonimmigrant alien prohibition, have the transferee present applicable documentation establishing the exception or waiver, note on the Form 4473 the type of documentation provided, and attach a copy of the documentation to the Form 4473.
(iv) Shall comply with the requirements of §478.102 and record on the form the date on which the licensee contacted the NICS, as well as any response provided by the system, including any identification number provided by the system.
(4) The licensee shall identify the firearm to be transferred by listing on the Form 4473 the name of the manufacturer, the name of the importer (if any), the type, model, caliber or gauge, and the serial number of the firearm.
(5) The licensee shall sign and date the form if the licensee does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is disqualified by law from receiving the firearm and transfer the firearm described on the Form 4473.
(d) Prior to making an over-the-counter transfer of a shotgun or rifle under the provisions contained in §478.96(c) to a nonlicensee who is not a resident of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, the licensee so transferring the shotgun or rifle, and such transferee, shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section: Provided, That in the case of a transferee who is an alien legally in the United States, the documentation required by paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section need only establish that the transferee is a resident of any State and has resided in such State continuously for at least 90 days prior to the transfer of the firearm. Examples of acceptable documentation include utility bills or a lease agreement. The licensee shall note on the form the documentation used.
...
(g) A licensee who sells or otherwise disposes of a firearm to a nonlicensee who is other than an individual, shall obtain from the transferee the information required by this section from an individual authorized to act on behalf of the transferee. In addition, the licensee shall obtain from the individual acting on behalf of the transferee a written statement, executed under the penalties of perjury, that the firearm is being acquired for the use of and will be the property of the transferee, and showing the name and address of that transferee.
(h) The requirements of this section shall be in addition to any other recordkeeping requirement contained in this part.
(i) A licensee may obtain, upon request, an emergency supply of Forms 4473 from any Director of Industry Operations. For normal usage, a licensee should request a year's supply from the ATF Distribution Center, 7943 Angus Court, Springfield, Virginia 22153.



PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Subpart H—Records
Browse Previous (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=1bcbef41e975a906edf2abdc5284090b;rg n=div8;view=text;node=27%3A3.0.1.2.3.8.1.10;idno=2 7;cc=ecfr) | Browse Next (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=1bcbef41e975a906edf2abdc5284090b;rg n=div8;view=text;node=27%3A3.0.1.2.3.8.1.12;idno=2 7;cc=ecfr)

§ 478.128 False statement or representation.

(a) Any person who knowingly makes any false statement or representation in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability, under the provisions of the Act, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Any person other than a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to any information required by the provisions of the Act or this part to be kept in the records of a person licensed under the Act or this part shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) Any licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to any information required by the provisions of the Act or this part to be kept in the records of a person licensed under the Act or this part shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 03:48 PM
Could you tell me what exactly I've claimed is legal is already illegal? I don't understand what specifically you're disagreeing with me over.

First, If it's straw man sales or sales by non licensed gun dealers is what you're referring to then I would say reread the last subsection a you cited. It only places penalties on those trying to buy illegal guns. It does nothing to stop those sellnig illegal guns. In the final subsection c that you cited it requires a mens rea element of 'knowingly' which is the highest and hardest to prove. It basically means you have to intentionally market and sell to criminals in order to be found in violation. Lowering that to recklessly or negligently would make this part of the statute actually have an effect. If you read that last section it may seem like this is already illegal, but practically when talking about prosecuting it's not nearly that clear.

Second, no statute you've cited has anything to do with home, person to person, or unlicensed dealer sales. The article I cited said this is the second biggest way legal guns fall into illegal hands, so requiring registration or reporting of these sales more like those in a regular gun store would go much farther in stopping criminals from getting guns.

Centrios
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 03:53 PM
In 217 years since the adoption of our Constitution that hasn't been a single examples of the federal government taking away guns from law abiding citizens, so you're slippery slope argument doesn't seem to be backed up by much besides a constant fear in spite of the facts. Many gun owners seem to share a this constant fear, but without any history or attempts to restrict our right to bear arms this seems to be irrational at best.

This isn’t entirely true.
There have been examples of State/local governments confiscating law abiding citizens firearms.

The NRA had a big campaign going called "give them back" or something like that. I would search for the information but if I search for “firearms” on my work computer the firewall blacks the search and alerts Human Resources. So search for it yourself if you don’t like my short explanation.

In Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina the Mayor/Governor (I can’t remember which) responding to an increase in violence and crime ordered the police to go door to door and confiscate all firearms. If you weren't home they just went in, confiscated them and left a note saying the police toke them. When homeowners got home and found their firearms missing they would go down to the police department. The police refused to return them. The NRA sued and won. The police were ordered to return all confiscated firearms. The police and Mayor/Governor still refused to return the firearms in spite of the court order. Then they “lost” a bunch of them. Since then I haven’t heard anything more about it.

So don’t tell me in 217 years government has tried to take firearms from law abiding citizens. This is also a good example of what could happen if there was a national firearms registry.

Not all gun owners are against all firearms regulations. I myself am open to reasonable regulation. The problem is if we start letting all these regulations pass then where do you draw the line? Its better to fight for every right we have right now as opposed to waiting until they ban every thing but pea shooters, then decide to start fighting for our (as Jim said) CONSTITUTIONAL rights.

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 04:21 PM
Could you tell me what exactly I've claimed is legal is already illegal? I don't understand what specifically you're disagreeing with me over.

First, If it's straw man sales or sales by non licensed gun dealers is what you're referring to then I would say reread the last subsection a you cited. It only places penalties on those trying to buy illegal guns. It does nothing to stop those sellnig illegal guns. In the final subsection c that you cited it requires a mens rea element of 'knowingly' which is the highest and hardest to prove. It basically means you have to intentionally market and sell to criminals in order to be found in violation. Lowering that to recklessly or negligently would make this part of the statute actually have an effect. If you read that last section it may seem like this is already illegal, but practically when talking about prosecuting it's not nearly that clear.

Second, no statute you've cited has anything to do with home, person to person, or unlicensed dealer sales. The article I cited said this is the second biggest way legal guns fall into illegal hands, so requiring registration or reporting of these sales more like those in a regular gun store would go much farther in stopping criminals from getting guns.

I haven't cited sections on unlicensed sales, as they aren't relevant. Such sales are legal, provided that the seller reasonably believes that the buyer is legally permitted to own the firearm. The act of attempting to purchase or possess a gun one may not legally own is in and of itself a crime. Did the state of California go out and arrest every one of the people that made a false statement in conjunction with the sales at Walmart? Or did they go after Walmart, because they had deeper pockets when it came to fines? The individuals that made materially false statements on their 4473s should be in prison on federal charges. The clerks that made sales that they knew were not above board should be charged.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 04:41 PM
This isn’t entirely true.

In Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina the Mayor/Governor (I can’t remember which) responding to an increase in violence and crime ordered the police to go door to door and confiscate all firearms. If you weren't home they just went in, confiscated them and left a note saying the police toke them. When homeowners got home and found their firearms missing they would go down to the police department. The police refused to return them. The NRA sued and won. The police were ordered to return all confiscated firearms. The police and Mayor/Governor still refused to return the firearms in spite of the court order. Then they “lost” a bunch of them. Since then I haven’t heard anything more about it.

First, from August 28th to Sept 17th 2005 there was a mandatory evacuation order in New Orleans and the city was declared a Federal City which is akin to martial law. Those that remained behind where in violation of this, and as criminals didn't retain the right to bear arms. The city could confiscate their weapons in order to evacuate them forcefully, so this isn't an example of this right being stripped from lawful citizens.

Second, despite what the NRA claims they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence showing that either the state, the federal, or even the official city government ordered guns to be confiscated as an official policy. All they could show is one rogue sheriff out on his own accord.

Third, Hurricane Katrina was a once in a century storm, and the aftermath was chaos not likely to be repeated again. Your chances of being bitten by a shark or struck by lightening is far greater, so using it as an example for anything is hardly relevant to the rest of the country during our normal lives.

clustermagnet
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 04:46 PM
http://www.geocities.com/goldenloki2/32acp/32testgun.jpg

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 04:57 PM
http://www.geocities.com/goldenloki2/32acp/32testgun.jpg

Is that yours? If so, I'm curious how you managed to get a permit in NYC...

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 04:58 PM
I haven't cited sections on unlicensed sales, as they aren't relevant. Such sales are legal, provided that the seller reasonably believes that the buyer is legally permitted to own the firearm. The act of attempting to purchase or possess a gun one may not legally own is in and of itself a crime. Did the state of California go out and arrest every one of the people that made a false statement in conjunction with the sales at Walmart? Or did they go after Walmart, because they had deeper pockets when it came to fines? The individuals that made materially false statements on their 4473s should be in prison on federal charges. The clerks that made sales that they knew were not above board should be charged.

Walmart wasn't prosecuted under the statute you cited. They were prosecuted by the CA state Attorney General under CA state law which is more restrictive in some areas than Federal law. I used that as an example of the illegal sales that are happening, not law enforcement cracking down on gun dealers because one example certainly isn't good evidence of that.

The ATF estimates that only 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes. As I stated above the statute you cited is weak on the penalty/enforcement side with the "may" language. What is the problem you have with legislation making penalties stronger and prosecution easier against gun dealers selling illegally? Why should individual sales be exempt from the same requirements?

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 05:13 PM
So why are the buyers not being referred to the federal courts for charges?

I see no problem with reasonable regulation, but the initial post in this thread was in opposition to an outright ban on firearms based on function and capacity. This segues into "safe storage" requirements, which in England resulted in handgun owners being forced to store their weapons in armories at their shooting club, which made it quite convenient to confiscate them when the Crown decided to ban private ownership of handguns (even for sporting purposes). Unsurprisingly, the criminals in the UK still have guns, still use them to commit crimes, and are safer in their chosen profession as a result of "reasonable regulation".

Possession of firearms by prohibited persons is a felony, it's time we enforced the law. Registration of firearms and firearms owners has inevitably led to confiscation, affecting only the law abiding.

Centrios
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 05:22 PM
First, from August 28th to Sept 17th 2005 there was a mandatory evacuation order in New Orleans and the city was declared a Federal City which is akin to martial law. Those that remained behind where in violation of this, and as criminals didn't retain the right to bear arms. The city could confiscate their weapons in order to evacuate them forcefully, so this isn't an example of this right being stripped from lawful citizens.

In New Orleans the citizens were ordered to leave, yes and most did. There was a small percent of people that didn’t want to leave and didn’t. There was even a larger percent of people that wanted to leave but had absolutely no means to do so. I wasn’t aware of the fact that they were all convicted of a crime and therefore deemed “criminals”. I also wasn’t aware of the fact “criminals” couldn’t posse’s firearms. That also doesn’t account for the fact they confiscated them out of the empty homes of citizens who did comply with the evacuation order.

I can see the confiscation of firearms from unoccupied homes. They could be stolen by the criminals. The problem is when they refuse to return them to the possession of their law abiding and rightful owner.

Your mention of declaring martial law and there fore making it legal to confiscate firearms is ridicules. No offence. The entire reason for the Second Amendment lies in that statement.




Second, despite what the NRA claims they haven't been able to produce a single piece of evidence showing that either the state, the federal, or even the official city government ordered guns to be confiscated as an official policy.


Does the NRA need to prove the State Government ordered the confiscation of all firearms? No. They just need to prove that police unconstitutionally confiscated the firearms. The NRA proved that and hence the police were court ordered to return them but did not.



Third, Hurricane Katrina was a once in a century storm. Your chances of being bitten by a shark or struck by lightening is far greater, so using it as an example for anything is hardly relevant to the rest of the country during our normal lives.


Tell that to the gunless law abiding citizens of Louisiana who now don’t have a firearm to protect their home from they very people the police didn’t want the guns to fall into the hands of.

Centrios
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 05:35 PM
Is that yours? If so, I'm curious how you managed to get a permit in NYC...

Id be more concerned why he owns a pink gun.

cu360r6
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 07:33 PM
I lived in NOLA for 8 months after Hurricane Katrina, so this is something that I have a bit of expeirence with.

First, while gutting homes I "confiscated" dozens of firearms and turned them over to the EPA for disposal. Of course they'd been rotting in chemical laced flood waters and were hardly usable anymore, but the NRA said this was a government action and wanted these weapons returned. It's ridiculous for the NRA to claim that I was a government actor and that taking weapons that could never be used again was unconstitutional.

Second, the ruling in the case you're talking about specifically said it wasn't the government taking weapons. The second amendment doesn't preserve your right to bear arms against anyone but the government. "2. P. Edwin Compass, III acknowledges that no authority has been delegated to him by C. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, pursuant to the powers granted unto the said Mayor by the provisions of LSA-RS 29:721, et seq. to order the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms from law abiding citizens and that any and all statements which are allegedly attributed to him in such regard do not represent any policy, statement, ordinance, regulation, decision, custom or practice of either C. Ray Nagin or the City of New Orleans, its agencies and/or departments;"

Fourth, it's not a crime to remain when there's a mandatory evacuation order, but it's a violation. Government entities were empowered to use force to remove citizens that refused to leave, and if they suspected weapons would be used to resist they had the power to remove the weapons. Show me one instance of a gun being confiscated before the mandatory evacuation order on 8/28 or after it on 9/17, and I'll concede the government unlawfully took weapons, but not even the NRA could prove one single instance.

Finally, using Hurricane Katrina as an example is pretty misleading for the reasons I've already cited. You're more likely to be involved in a shark attack or lightening strike than in something like this, so fearing this is completely irrational. Can you give show one reasonable example of an unconstitutional confiscation by the government that wasn't remedied by the courts?

DavidofColorado
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 07:47 PM
I don't think the NRA was talking about you the days after the flood proactive months later. They were talking about the guns grabbed from owners during the crisis.

DavidofColorado
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 07:51 PM
We never hear from you unless you are mis informing us will liberal bias. What's up with that? You made one post about AMA racing and the rest was just crazy talk.

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 08:10 PM
Id be more concerned why he owns a pink gun.

It's actually more of a lavender....:gay:... but that still doesn't explain how he managed to get a permit in NYC, one of the most restrictive environments for gun ownership, and not coincidentally, one of the highest violent crime areas in the US.

clustermagnet
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 08:15 PM
We never hear from you unless you are mis informing us will liberal bias. What's up with that? You made one post about AMA racing and the rest was just crazy talk.



Maybe he is implying that gun owners have a small peepee syndrome, in general

DavidofColorado
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 08:17 PM
But it doesn't infringe on his rights according to CU360R6. It s a common sense step for keeping guns out of the wrong hands. To bad it looks like suffocation by regulation to me.

TFOGGuys
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 08:17 PM
I lived in NOLA for 8 months after Hurricane Katrina, so this is something that I have a bit of expeirence with.

First, while gutting homes I "confiscated" dozens of firearms and turned them over to the EPA for disposal. Of course they'd been rotting in chemical laced flood waters and were hardly usable anymore, but the NRA said this was a government action and wanted these weapons returned.

How were these accounted for? Not to be rude, but were serial numbers recorded, pictures taken, and affidavits of destruction issued? How are the homeowners to know if they were stolen prior to the gutting of the house, or removed by the government? Was any compensation issued for the destroyrf arms?

DavidofColorado
Fri Mar 7th, 2008, 08:19 PM
Maybe he is implying that gun owners have a small peepee syndrome, in general
Maybe but you might be surprised that I'm not over compensating for anything. You mom can vouch for me.
Where did you get your pinko gun. My niece wants one. She is such a good republican.

cu360r6
Sat Mar 8th, 2008, 12:39 PM
Maybe he is implying that gun owners have a small peepee syndrome, in general
I'm a gun owner myself I just don't have an irrational fear the "government" is trying to take away any freedoms since they haven't tried once in 217 years. If you guys think a gun owner proposing reasonable restrictions to control gun crime is extreme left rhetoric then you truly don't have an accurate view of the center.


How were these accounted for? Not to be rude, but were serial numbers recorded, pictures taken, and affidavits of destruction issued? How are the homeowners to know if they were stolen prior to the gutting of the house, or removed by the government? Was any compensation issued for the destroyrf arms?
First, homowners had to request their houses to be gutted and fill out paperwork authorizing it. We threw out everything that couldn't be salvaged inside the homes down to the frames, foundations, and roof. Imagine how much debris that is, now multiple it by a few hundred thousand. There was many times more debris than from the twin towers. Gutting and rebuilding the homes was the priority, not checking and recording serial numbers.
Second, the flood waters weren't just water. They were mixed with all the chemicals from thousands of appliances, home cleaners, leaking oil containers, underground gas tanks, etc. They corroded most metal including guns beyond the point of recognition, so recording serial numbers was not practical or possible. Any unusable chunk of metal hardly deserves 'compensation' especially when home owners authorized us to be there.

blue02celi
Sat Mar 8th, 2008, 01:10 PM
debates are fun..

for those who like to put out there that they believe in their 2nd amendment right, do you really understand how the 2nd amendment came about? doesnt sound like it from most of the posts. they didnt just one day say hey, I think we should be able to have a gun. there was a reason for it. You can go read up on it on a bunch of websites so unless its necessary I wont. short story, they didnt have a national guard back in the day as im sure you all know and most states ever required men of age to own a gun.

people seem to forget about the whole first half of the amendment?:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Raptor
Sat Mar 8th, 2008, 02:42 PM
I'm a gun owner myself I just don't have an irrational fear the "government" is trying to take away any freedoms since they haven't tried once in 217 years. If you guys think a gun owner proposing reasonable restrictions to control gun crime is extreme left rhetoric then you truly don't have an accurate view of the center.

The rationality or irrationality of one's "fear" is subjective to individual experience and perception. I don't see much too far on the side of "irrational" here myself but again....subjective.
Do you not recall the hi-cap magazine and "assault' weapon ban? How rational was that? That wasn't government infringement of our rights?

Are you implying that the proposal being petitioned against is reasonable? It sure doesn't seem so to me. I see a decent effort and organization of people using their voice to oppose it. Is that irrational? I don't think so. I think if any legislation has failed it's because of situtations like these. Honestly though, I see more and more instances of the people's voice being ignored by lawmakers and government sidestepping us. It happens everyday.
I agree with what you propose to an extent. Too bad law makers are barking up the wrong tree to accomplish anything in the way of that. Hell, they're barking in the wrong forest. Any measure that would viably minimize the availability of guns to criminals is one worth looking at.

Playing devil's advocate is great from a debate point of view. How about doing the same in the face of those who support the ridiculous proposal that began this discussion?

The Black Knight
Sat Mar 8th, 2008, 02:45 PM
debates are fun..

for those who like to put out there that they believe in their 2nd amendment right, do you really understand how the 2nd amendment came about? doesnt sound like it from most of the posts. they didnt just one day say hey, I think we should be able to have a gun. there was a reason for it. You can go read up on it on a bunch of websites so unless its necessary I wont. short story, they didnt have a national guard back in the day as im sure you all know and most states ever required men of age to own a gun.

people seem to forget about the whole first half of the amendment?:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State


The whole idea of a state militia or what we consider now a "National Guard" didn't come about until the to late 1800's and I mean late.
quick excerpt I found on the net:
"However, the Supreme Court has ruled (in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)) that " The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
Odd, how that's close to 100+ years after the framers of the Constitution. The first part of the Second Amendment is for a non-Federal militia. Meaning citizens themselves could form militia's. However, in this day and age the Fed's view that as Ruby Ridge type action and put a stop to those kinds of groups.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the Second Amendment also allows for Militia's. However, you can't argue with the second part of the 2nd Amendment as it reads - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't know about you, but that's pretty black and white in it's explanation of both sides.

TFOGGuys
Mon Mar 10th, 2008, 12:43 PM
debates are fun..

for those who like to put out there that they believe in their 2nd amendment right, do you really understand how the 2nd amendment came about? doesnt sound like it from most of the posts. they didnt just one day say hey, I think we should be able to have a gun. there was a reason for it. You can go read up on it on a bunch of websites so unless its necessary I wont. short story, they didnt have a national guard back in the day as im sure you all know and most states ever required men of age to own a gun.

people seem to forget about the whole first half of the amendment?:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

The Free State you reference in Colonial times was referring to govenment oppression as well as external aggression. The framers of the Bill of Rights knew that inability to defend one's rights leaves those rights at the whim of those willing to use force to infringe upon them. If you have any doubt about that frame of mind, I refer you to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right

clustermagnet
Mon Mar 10th, 2008, 01:01 PM
hey, as long as i type up 2 lines, and they type 2 paragraphs... I win :)

InlineSIX24
Mon Mar 10th, 2008, 01:18 PM
Funny.. I remember how this started out as a petition link for pro 2A people. I guess it would be really simple to just not sign it if someone believes in and agrees w/ the specific measures that it would impose.. ? The bill doesn't leave any wiggle room or gray area for bleeding-heart views about 'rights are great, but only if..' so it really makes it a yes or no deal.

:lol:

clustermagnet
Mon Mar 10th, 2008, 02:24 PM
yeh... it takes only one line to get people going :)



What would you say to making it much more difficult to attain one instead?

heh

DavidofColorado
Mon Mar 10th, 2008, 06:51 PM
It doesn't really matter if you are a gun owner and don't care or don't believe that gun bans will affect them. All that matters is that those that do want to protect their rights know about it so they can act to protect their rights.

All the rest of it doesn't matter. All the misinformation and two faced gun banners can shut up in my opinion.

clustermagnet
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 04:38 PM
It doesn't really matter if you are a gun owner and don't care or don't believe that gun bans will affect them. All that matters is that those that do want to protect their rights know about it so they can act to protect their rights.

All the rest of it doesn't matter. All the misinformation and two faced gun banners can shut up in my opinion.

You make no sense. I have a feeling there are some punctuation marks missing..........

dragos13
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 04:45 PM
It doesn't really matter if you are a gun owner and don't care or don't believe that gun bans will affect them. All that matters is that those that do want to protect their rights know about it so they can act to protect their rights.

Spoken like a true genius


All the rest of it doesn't matter. All the misinformation and two faced gun banners can shut up in my opinion.

Who in specific would you be referring to?

clustermagnet
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 04:49 PM
GUNS = MURDER

Shea
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 04:52 PM
GUNS = MURDER

Pure genius....

Guess I need to get back to cleaning my MURDER.

TFOGGuys
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 05:17 PM
GUNS = MURDER

So pass a law outlawing guns... for everyone...including police and miiltary. Then there would be no gun crime, right? And think how much money we would save on national defense!

[/fucking stupid sarcastic proposal]

dragos13
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 05:27 PM
So pass a law outlawing guns... for everyone...including police and miiltary. Then there would be no gun crime, right? And think how much money we would save on national defense!

[/fucking stupid sarcastic proposal]

What do you mean??? Gun bans have worked wonders in DC :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Spoken like a true genius
Thanks. I hope you weren't being sarcastic. Thank you really.




Who in specific would you be referring to?

Anybody that doesn't take the time to protect their rights. Elmer Fudd types are the worst because they don't think that a ban on a black rifle will ever affect their double barrel shot gun.
CU360 is the worst. Clustermagnet can say he is gun owner and that they should be banned but he lives in NY and can't own a gun. They have been regulated out of the peoples hands.

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Pure genius....

Guess I need to get back to cleaning my MURDER.

That is fucking hilarious:pointlaugh:.

TFOGGuys
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 05:55 PM
What do you mean??? Gun bans have worked wonders in DC :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html

And Nazi Germany...and the UK...and Australia....:roll:

DavidofColorado
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 05:59 PM
What do you mean??? Gun bans have worked wonders in DC :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336689,00.html
Don't let facts get in the way of a good cause. You can never get something banned that way.

ThorsTwin
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 06:28 PM
Petition Signed!

Don't forget to renew, join, & or contribute to the NRA.

The Black Knight
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 07:20 PM
GUNS = MURDER

Oh really?

well you might as well add to that list: knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, hammers, saws, any power tool, piano string, rope, pipe wrenches, tire irons, steel tubing, plastic bags, pillows, water, fire, racing chariots in the colosseum, ramming speed on roman galleons, falling off a bridge, getting hit by a car, being in the sun to long, breathing bad air, drinking alcohol, smoking, chewing tobacco, sky diving, base jumping, snowboarding, skiing, sports in general

and last but not least, our favorite. Riding Motorcycles...

because everything listed above has the probability of death. Either by our actions or by someone else's, because you can die just as easily with everything listed above. If not moreso with some things.

So by using your thought process that Guns = Murder. Then maybe we need to ban everything in life. Nothing like sitting around and twiddling our thumbs for the rest of our lives staring at each other and smoking pot.

Yep that's the perfect hippy mentality. Burn tree, be unproductive and never look back. Future looks bright doesn't it?

dirkterrell
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 07:57 PM
Oh really?

well you might as well add to that list: knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, hammers, saws, any power tool, piano string, rope, pipe wrenches, tire irons, steel tubing, plastic bags, pillows, water, fire, ...

Don't forget hands. I mean, people choke other people to death so we should ban hands. Turn 'em in, people!

Knives are already on the list in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

And glass bottles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5037322.stm

For those of you who rag on those of us who resist what seem like "reasonable" limits on the right to self-defense, just follow the history of the UK in recent years. You end up with bans on kitchen knives and violent crime skyrockets. Brilliant.

Dirk

rforsythe
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 08:01 PM
...racing chariots in the colosseum

Well shit, now what am I gonna do with my chariot? :(

Ben Hur FTW!!

InlineSIX24
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 08:19 PM
Oh really?

well you might as well add to that list..

I think its pretty clear that someone is just out to push buttons. Don't let someone who doesn't even live here get to you man.
:drink:

ChrisCBX
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 08:46 PM
Don't forget hands. I mean, people choke other people to death so we should ban hands. Turn 'em in, people!

Knives are already on the list in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

And glass bottles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5037322.stm

For those of you who rag on those of us who resist what seem like "reasonable" limits on the right to self-defense, just follow the history of the UK in recent years. You end up with bans on kitchen knives and violent crime skyrockets. Brilliant.

Dirk

+1

The BBC stories were hilarious! I had always joked with my friends that this was going to happen in the UK. Didn't realize that some people over there were actually contemplating this.

I guess the next thing that will need banned are rocks used in landscaping around pubs. Can't risk drunken pub customers attacking each other with rocks when they realize their Guinness bottles are plastic. LOL

The Black Knight
Tue Mar 11th, 2008, 09:14 PM
I think its pretty clear that someone is just out to push buttons. Don't let someone who doesn't even live here get to you man.
:drink:
OH he's not getting to me man. The list was done in humor more then anything else. However, it does have some significance behind it. Mainly to point out, that once you try and ban one thing. You might as well ban them all.

So in a comical sort of way, I'm trying to get him to think a little.

Centrios
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 10:36 AM
Don't forget hands. I mean, people choke other people to death so we should ban hands. Turn 'em in, people!

Knives are already on the list in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

And glass bottles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5037322.stm

For those of you who rag on those of us who resist what seem like "reasonable" limits on the right to self-defense, just follow the history of the UK in recent years. You end up with bans on kitchen knives and violent crime skyrockets. Brilliant.

Dirk

Wow that shit is crazy. Ban this and the criminals use that. Ban that and the criminals use those. Band those and the criminals use...
Maybe they should just ban criminals...

TFOGGuys
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 10:39 AM
Wow that shit is crazy. Ban this and the criminals use that. Ban that and the criminals use those. Band those and the criminals use...
Maybe they should just ban criminals...

Ding Ding ding! We have a Winner!

dirkterrell
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 10:55 AM
Maybe they should just ban criminals...

Paul Campos had this quote in a recent column of his in the Rocky Mountain News that made me laugh out loud:


We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and the prison population continues to grow, despite a plunge in crime rates over the past 15 years.

Now, it seems logical to me that if you put criminals in jail, crime rates will drop but to some, they just can't seem to make the connection.

Dirk

*GSXR~SNAIL*
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Heh...2+2=?


Paul Campos had this quote in a recent column of his in the Rocky Mountain News that made me laugh out loud:



Now, it seems logical to me that if you put criminals in jail, crime rates will drop but to some, they just can't seem to make the connection.

Dirk

TFOGGuys
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 11:04 AM
Well shit, now what am I gonna do with my chariot? :(

Ben Hur FTW!!

Put a whored up, chromed out Harley motor on it.... you could get your own TV show!

http://www.users.bigpond.com/mr_brianpowell/chariot/images/river.jpg

rforsythe
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 11:06 AM
Put a whored up, chromed out Harley motor on it.... you could get your own TV show!

This is right about the point where Donna starts giving me that "don't even think about it" look.....

Though I do have this 390 V8 in my garage and nothing much to do with it..... :twisted:

dragos13
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 12:44 PM
This should make most of us happy:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=87977

For everyone who supports gun ownership, but doesn't have a CCW permit, I would say: GET ON IT. The more people who actually do something about the right to bear arms, the better off our state will be.

ChrisCBX
Wed Mar 12th, 2008, 06:59 PM
This should make most of us happy:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=87977

For everyone who supports gun ownership, but doesn't have a CCW permit, I would say: GET ON IT. The more people who actually do something about the right to bear arms, the better off our state will be.

Your post reminded me that I needed to renew...........

thanks.

sam20
Sun Nov 9th, 2008, 06:06 PM
I just signed it.

People who trade liberties for safety's don't deserve either one.

The criminals will always have guns. as long as there is a means and or profit there will always be murders. The only ones that will loose are the ignorant and the law biding citizens that respect the laws of the land.

It will be a sad day when they pry my m4 carbine out of my dead cold clammy hands

MAZIN
Sun Nov 9th, 2008, 06:27 PM
44,587 Pass it on!!!

Priller_Nate
Mon Nov 10th, 2008, 08:49 AM
The deadline on this said 5/22/08.

LadyT
Mon Nov 10th, 2008, 09:10 AM
just signed it

LadyT
Mon Nov 10th, 2008, 09:11 AM
ha ha ha....should have read the date...my bad

puckstr
Mon Nov 10th, 2008, 09:11 AM
This shit is boring.

DavidofColorado
Mon Nov 10th, 2008, 11:11 AM
ha ha ha....should have read the date...my bad
It will come back around. It keeps showing up like a bad penny.

BeoBe
Mon Nov 10th, 2008, 02:20 PM
i signed but i didn't see anything about semi auto guns as i did see semi auto shotguns... either way, banning of any guns is dumb.. I can respect the banning of fully auto weapons because thats just overkill in any situation unless your in TN which is the Fully Auto Capital of the USA..