Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

Quote:

The .223 Remington is widely used for defense against foxes and coyotes.

Defense? Those animals tend to avoid humans. A trapper, who gets within biting distance of a trapped animal, usually carries a sidearm. A warden or animal control officer might be called upon to dispatch a rabid animal but I don't think a .223 is the preferred weapon for such a task either.

2 Replies

@hightor,

I don't know about coyotes, but the only things who need to defend themselves agsinst foxes are chickens.

Even urban foxes, of which there are plenty in Southampton, are wary of humans.

1 Reply

@hightor,

What purpose does a gun registry serve?

Do you think criminals will be adding their guns to such a registry? If not, what is its real purpose?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

the only things who need to defend themselves against foxes are chickens.

Exactly.

From my post on the previous page where I made a hypothetical list for InfraBlue, illustrating how a single person could have a use for 17 different guns:

"c) a 22-250 to protect his chickens from foxes and coyotes"

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Defense? Those animals tend to avoid humans.

They also tend to annihilate a farmer's chicken coop.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Why is it an infringement to have the serial number and the ID of the purchaser a matter of record?

The great objection to gun registration is the fact that the government will use it to track down and seize people's guns if they are outlawed.

If guns are outlawed without gun registration, it will be much easier for people to disregard the law and keep using their guns illegally.

There is even a theory that the left will not even try to outlaw weapons unless they have first been placed on a registration list. Under that theory, preventing guns from being registered will also prevent an attempt to outlaw them.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

So what you mean is it is not an infringement, but a risk if your rights are infringed. Kind of like voluntarily giving Google all your passwords, email correspondence, phone contacts etc - that is a risk in the event that Google takes over the world in a corporotocracy, or Google collaborated with the newly formed dictatorship of the United Comrade States of America. You object, you're found.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Pretty much.

I would put it as: "It's not an infringement, but a weapon that can be used by infringers."

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

do a version of what MA did a few years ago, as i recall. found in possession of an unregistered or no serial number gun, mandatory two years in the slammer, no excuses,

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

What about antique guns from the time before serial numbers were placed on guns? Are such antiques against the law in MA now?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

If guns are outlawed without gun registration, it will be much easier for people to disregard the law and keep using their guns illegally.

In order for firearms to be outlawed, the 2nd Amendment would need to be repealed, revised, or reinterpreted. In any of those instances, we would no longer have an unquestioned right to bear arms. If further legislation were passed to make gun ownership illegal, whether the weapons are registered or not makes no difference. Mere possession of a gun would be considered a crime. The gun would be confiscated and destroyed, the owner written up, fined, or jailed. That'd be much easier than trying to match registration numbers.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

What purpose does a gun registry serve?

It doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't exist.

2 Replies

@hightor,

According to the European Firearm Directive [info@wikipedia], all member states are obliged to operate a computerised weapons register at national level.

In Germany, with the establishment of the National Weapons Register, the relevant information on weapons, permits and permit holders recorded by the then approx. 550 local weapons authorities was transferred to a Central Weapons Register in a standardised manner while retaining the federal structures.

For each firearm requiring a licence, it is thus possible to trace in real time who owns the weapon, since when they have owned it and from whom it was acquired.
All authorised authorities in the EU (and non-EU Schengen countries) that require data on weapons law within the scope of their tasks and responsibilities will be able to access this data at any time.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

We need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

We also need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of birth control and any type of abortion medicine or procedure.

The Police should be able to also stop and search anyone for any reason.

Soldiers should be able to sleep where ever they want to.

We should also require everyone to go to Church on Sundays or Saturday depending on which religion you sign up for. But, it will be required that everyone register for one of the major religions.

Also, the Press shall only print what the government feels it should. There shall be no further denigration or propaganda released via the press that is not cleared through a central committee of government representatives.

Any further slurs or insults directed at the Federal government or any official therein shall be met with mandatory jail time and hard labor.

Also, no further Jury trials. A qualified Judge is more than capable of deciding whether a person is innocent or guilty of any crime.

In reference to gun regulation, the keeping and bearing of arms for a well regulated Militia is written into the Constitution. The US has been severely derelict in the good regulation of that Militia and the keeping and bearing of arms in that regard.

Some of your proposals are not constitutional.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
No it doesn't.

That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.

Wrong.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Confused and wrong. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically addressed assault weapons.
You are wrong. The 1994 law was not against pistol grips nor did it focus on banning ordinary hunting rifles; it banned assault weapons.
Confused and wrong, again. The 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act was not a law against pistol grips; it specifically focused on banning assault weapons.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.

Wrong.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You're massively delusional.
I did not outlaw a bunch of ordinary hunting rifles.

You support the 1994 law that outlawed a bunch of hunting rifles for no reason.

I support the 1994 law that banned assault weapons.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your assertion of enjoyment of violating people's civil liberties is risibly irrelevant.

The fact that your violation of people's civil liberties was motivated by pure malice influences the amount of compensation that I require from you before I will support any new gun laws.

Your delusional assertions are risibly irrelevant.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your other risible, irrelevant assertion of compensation aside, moderates will support the passing of gun regulations.

I'm a moderate and I will not do so until you have provided adequate compensation for your past atrocities.

Your risibly irrelevant delusional assertion aside, you need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I have no 1994 atrocity.

That 1994 ban on pistol grips that you support was an atrocity.

You are risibly delusional.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Your risible assertions of compensation are irrelevant in regard to your need to support gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.

You, by your own volition, need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Yours is a straw man argument and as such is irrelevant to the need for comprehensive gun regulation laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation which you need to support.

You have voiced support for the 1994 ban on pistol grips, so it is no straw man to point out that you supported violating people's civil liberties.

You are risibly delusional.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You are delusional, but that does not negate your need to support comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

Everything that I say is true, and you have no power to make me support new gun control laws.

Everything you say is delusional. That is irrelevant to the fact that you need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
You are failing miserably in keeping up with the argument. We have every possible need to enact comprehensive gun control laws for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

Not when those gun control laws are merely you violating people's civil liberties for fun.

You need to put aside your delusions and support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

Your desire to destroy organizations that protect our civil liberties is chilling and Orwellian.

Thankfully you are again wrong. Progressives have no power to destroy the NRA.

There is nothing Orwellian about demanding the good regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms as per the US Constitution.

This organization contributes to your delusions. You need to support its extinguishing and relegation to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Wrong. People only have a possibly legitimate reason for owning one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun, and the restricting of the number of weapons someone can possess is thoroughly justified.

A single person could have:
yada, yada, yada. . .

Much more importantly though, is the fact that you don't have a legitimate reason for restricting the number of guns that someone can have.

Unjustifiable gun restrictions are unconstitutional gun restrictions.

Wrong. I have a legitimate and constitutionally justifiable reasons for restricting the number of guns that someone can have.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
We need to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

Form 4473s already fulfil that function. If comprehensive background check legislation is ever passed, that will result in Form 4473s being filed for secondhand sales as well.

No it doesn't.

The nation needs to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

It doesn't serve any purpose; it doesn't exist.

If a gun registry does not serve any purpose, then there is no reason for the left to try to create a gun registry.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

In order for firearms to be outlawed, the 2nd Amendment would need to be repealed, revised, or reinterpreted.

Yes. And the left continues to work towards achieving those things.

hightor wrote:

In any of those instances, we would no longer have an unquestioned right to bear arms.

We would still have an unquestioned right if the Second Amendment was merely "reinterpreted" as such a reinterpretation would be illegitimate.

hightor wrote:

If further legislation were passed to make gun ownership illegal, whether the weapons are registered or not makes no difference.

That is incorrect. Registration lists would be used to track down everyone who refused to give up their guns.

hightor wrote:

Mere possession of a gun would be considered a crime.

That won't stop people from possessing guns. Especially if the gun is unregistered so the government has no idea that the person possesses it.

hightor wrote:

The gun would be confiscated and destroyed, the owner written up, fined, or jailed.

Only if they were caught.

Registration lists would help to catch people.

hightor wrote:

That'd be much easier than trying to match registration numbers.

It is just the opposite. Registration lists would make it much easier to catch lawbreakers.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

In reference to gun regulation, the keeping and bearing of arms for a well regulated Militia is written into the Constitution.

That's why your proposals are unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

The US has been severely derelict in the good regulation of that Militia

Bear in mind that the term "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

InfraBlue wrote:

and the keeping and bearing of arms in that regard.

Yes, the US has indeed been severely derelict in that regard. And it is mainly because of you and other progressives.

If you guys stopped passing laws that prevent people from keeping arms, people would be able to start doing it.

InfraBlue wrote:

Some of your proposals are not constitutional.

That's because he mirrored his proposals off from your proposals.

I assume that he was trying to demonstrate to you that your proposals are unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong.

That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.

InfraBlue wrote:

I support the 1994 law that banned assault weapons.

Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your delusional assertions are risibly irrelevant.
Your risibly irrelevant delusional assertion aside,

Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.

If you want my support for any new gun laws, my requirements for giving that support are extremely relevant.

InfraBlue wrote:

you need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.

InfraBlue wrote:

You are risibly delusional.

Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.

InfraBlue wrote:

You, by your own volition, need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

You seem confused what "by my own volition" means. It means that you have no say over the matter.

And you don't.

InfraBlue wrote:

You are risibly delusional.
Everything you say is delusional. That is irrelevant to the fact that you need to support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.
You need to put aside your delusions and support the passing of gun regulations for the good of the general welfare of the nation.

Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.

I will not support new gun laws until you have paid compensation for your past atrocities, and you cannot make me do otherwise.

InfraBlue wrote:

There is nothing Orwellian about demanding the good regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms as per the US Constitution.

True. But that's not what you were doing.

What you were doing was calling for the destruction of an organization that protects and defends our civil liberties.

Incidentally, the term "well-regulated" merely means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

InfraBlue wrote:

This organization contributes to your delusions.

Every one of my facts can be backed up with a reputable cite.

InfraBlue wrote:

You need to support its extinguishing and relegation to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

I have no intention of supporting the destruction of groups that defend and protect civil liberties, and you have no power to make me do so.

InfraBlue wrote:

The NRA will be extinguished and relegated to an unfortunate chapter in the nation's history.

Your desire to destroy organizations that protect our civil liberties is chilling and Orwellian.

Thankfully you are again wrong. Progressives have no power to destroy the NRA.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong. I have a legitimate and constitutionally justifiable reasons for restricting the number of guns that someone can have.

If so, you can name the reason or reasons. Can you?

InfraBlue wrote:

No it doesn't.

That is incorrect. Form 4473s function as a gun registry.

InfraBlue wrote:

The nation needs to establish a national registry for the ownership and possession of firearms.

The nation already has such a registry. That's what Form 4473s are.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The difficulties you envision are worst case scenarios which you have posited as the probable outcome but there's no reason for the confiscation of firearms within peoples' homes. The law could grandfather the possession of firearms but prohibit them being carried beyond the extent one's curtilage, for instasnce.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know