Clinton's sneak attack on our right to arms
- Thread starter steelheart
- Start date
- Status
Originally posted by MidnightRambler
And in all but two of those states, what is required to carry concealed legally?
Why, you must simply register yourself, that's all. In some states, that includes down to the make and model of firearm you plan on carrying.
I'm not suggesting the Black Mariah is warmed up and the Chekisty are ready to break in our doors, but there does exist a minority of gun owners who simply refuse to register themselves or their weapons, state laws be darned.
And in all but two of those states, what is required to carry concealed legally?
Why, you must simply register yourself, that's all. In some states, that includes down to the make and model of firearm you plan on carrying.
I'm not suggesting the Black Mariah is warmed up and the Chekisty are ready to break in our doors, but there does exist a minority of gun owners who simply refuse to register themselves or their weapons, state laws be darned.
Sneaky or Not
While many of the Brady crowd caliber have become emboldened by recent successes (Brady Act, AWB, etc) to the point of being blatant in their hatred of firearms and firearms owners, others continue to use stealth as their MO.
The success of CCW laws has provided the federal government with a wonderful tool for cataloguing firearms and firearms owners. As previously pointed out by another, 'shall issue' CCW laws ALL require registration of the owner and many require specific documentation of the piece to be carried. What a wonderful resource for the BATFE when the Brady crowd finally achieve their goal (it has already happened in England and Australia to mention a couple).
In addition to the obvious database created by such registrations, there is another issue I have with CCW laws. The Second Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes that the right of Americans to keep and BEAR arms is inalienable and may not be infringed. By registering ones self with the state and applying for a CCW, the Inalienable RIGHT has been voluntarily surrendered to the state and accepted back as a State Issued PRIVILEDGE. This is a circumstance I simply cannot abide.
While many of the Brady crowd caliber have become emboldened by recent successes (Brady Act, AWB, etc) to the point of being blatant in their hatred of firearms and firearms owners, others continue to use stealth as their MO.
The success of CCW laws has provided the federal government with a wonderful tool for cataloguing firearms and firearms owners. As previously pointed out by another, 'shall issue' CCW laws ALL require registration of the owner and many require specific documentation of the piece to be carried. What a wonderful resource for the BATFE when the Brady crowd finally achieve their goal (it has already happened in England and Australia to mention a couple).
In addition to the obvious database created by such registrations, there is another issue I have with CCW laws. The Second Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes that the right of Americans to keep and BEAR arms is inalienable and may not be infringed. By registering ones self with the state and applying for a CCW, the Inalienable RIGHT has been voluntarily surrendered to the state and accepted back as a State Issued PRIVILEDGE. This is a circumstance I simply cannot abide.
There is no direct connection between ownership and CCLs. Even if you must list your carry guns (as in some states), there is no law that demands that you remove those guns from your license as they are sold. So that information ultimately is useless.
"But the government will assume you have guns!" They had better - there are more guns than people in the US, chances are there might be a gun in any random household. Hardly a useful methodology for collecting them.
steelheart
Moderator
What unbelievable nonsense!
Do people get driver's licenses just because they like the pretty colors on them or because it makes them feel important? Noooooooooooo - they get them because they own cars and want to drive cars.
I know a boatload of people who hold CCWs, and you know what?? Not a damn one of them has to go borrow a gun when he/she wants to carry!!
If a person obtains a CCW, "The Government" will operate under the reasonable belief that the person owns a gun or guns. "The Government" may be many things, but stupid is not one of them.
And bears do not release feces in the woods.
Steelheart,
Your example makes my point. The first 5 years I had a drivers license I didn't own a car. My brother could qualify and carry one of my guns on his license. The license is not connected to ownership.
What we're talking about is whether a CCL database actually provides ownership information on guns. My point is that it does not since you don't have to own any of the guns listed. AND, your CCL doesn't expire when you don't own a gun. So the database provides no concrete data for the government to work on. Just a record of what someone is qualified to carry.
They can't hold you responsible for what is listed on your CCL when there is no mechanism to keep that list current.
"We see here that your CCL has a S&W listed. We'd like to see that gun."
"I sold it two years ago to some guy in Reno. Get off my lawn."
"If you have a CCL you must have some gun."
"Nope. Haven't carried in quite awhile, so I sold them all. The sprinklers are coming on."
Understand?
Your example makes my point. The first 5 years I had a drivers license I didn't own a car. My brother could qualify and carry one of my guns on his license. The license is not connected to ownership.
What we're talking about is whether a CCL database actually provides ownership information on guns. My point is that it does not since you don't have to own any of the guns listed. AND, your CCL doesn't expire when you don't own a gun. So the database provides no concrete data for the government to work on. Just a record of what someone is qualified to carry.
They can't hold you responsible for what is listed on your CCL when there is no mechanism to keep that list current.
"We see here that your CCL has a S&W listed. We'd like to see that gun."
"I sold it two years ago to some guy in Reno. Get off my lawn."
"If you have a CCL you must have some gun."
"Nope. Haven't carried in quite awhile, so I sold them all. The sprinklers are coming on."
Understand?
steelheart
Moderator
You convieniently ignore the main point of my post which is
Understand?
I'm not ignoring anything, you are ignoring how a gun ban works (Imagine bullhorn voice):
PLEASE HAND IN ALL YOUR GUNS.
OKAY, WE KNOW SOME OF YOU STILL HAVE GUNS, AND WE HAVE AN INCOMPLETE, UNENFORCEABLE LIST OF PEOPLE WE THINK MIGHT HAVE THEM, OR NOT.
OKAY, THAT DIDN'T WORK. EVERYONE WHO LISTED A GUN ON THEIR CCL SAYS THEY SOLD IT TO SOME GUY LAST YEAR. IF YOU ARE THAT GUY, PLEASE HAND THEM IN.
AH, WE JUST NOTICED THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY 100,000,000 GUNS THAT THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN EVER ACCOUNT FOR, BUT WE'D LIKE THOSE, TOO, PLEASE.
We avoid registration because it is the means of ENFORCEMENT of a gun ban, not the mechanism of the legislation. If the gov't has no direct registration of specific guns, they have no means of enforcement, and are less likely to pass unenforceable bans. Listing a gun on your CCL does not legally register it to you - it just means it was in your possession the day you qualified. Having a CCL does not insure that you STILL have a gun at the time of a ban. That's the bottom line.
Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
PLEASE HAND IN ALL YOUR GUNS.
OKAY, WE KNOW SOME OF YOU STILL HAVE GUNS, AND WE HAVE AN INCOMPLETE, UNENFORCEABLE LIST OF PEOPLE WE THINK MIGHT HAVE THEM, OR NOT.
OKAY, THAT DIDN'T WORK. EVERYONE WHO LISTED A GUN ON THEIR CCL SAYS THEY SOLD IT TO SOME GUY LAST YEAR. IF YOU ARE THAT GUY, PLEASE HAND THEM IN.
AH, WE JUST NOTICED THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY 100,000,000 GUNS THAT THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN EVER ACCOUNT FOR, BUT WE'D LIKE THOSE, TOO, PLEASE.
We avoid registration because it is the means of ENFORCEMENT of a gun ban, not the mechanism of the legislation. If the gov't has no direct registration of specific guns, they have no means of enforcement, and are less likely to pass unenforceable bans. Listing a gun on your CCL does not legally register it to you - it just means it was in your possession the day you qualified. Having a CCL does not insure that you STILL have a gun at the time of a ban. That's the bottom line.
Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
Hunter Rose
New member
I'm picking up that the two of you need to be put on ignore. What happened: did Rich stop giving Clownies?
Yes, it's a reasonable assumption on the part of the government that, if you have a CCW, you have a gun. However, not every gun owner gets a CCW.
Now... could the two of you please quite wrangling?
Yes, it's a reasonable assumption on the part of the government that, if you have a CCW, you have a gun. However, not every gun owner gets a CCW.
Now... could the two of you please quite wrangling?
Impossible to enforce
Reading over the conversations above, I am reminded of the slippery slope legislation that eventually led to ordered surrender/confiscation of 'Assault Weapons' in the Peoples Republic of California. While I have major issues with the potential misuse of the registration database created by CCW, I also remember that when law enforcement tried to confiscate the 'Assault Weapons' more than 250,000 Californians refused to turn in their weapons. I have not noticed mass arrests of non-compliant firearms owners in California.
That said, I still believe the 'liberal' (look the word up in the dictionary, it doesn't really fit dems at all) agenda in this country is to effect total disarmament of civilians. I do not trust them to refrain from abusing any bit of information they can get their hands on and I still choose not to surrender a God-given Right and accept it back from the state as a priviledge.
As firearms enthusiasts, could we please curb some of the hostility evident in this thread?
Reading over the conversations above, I am reminded of the slippery slope legislation that eventually led to ordered surrender/confiscation of 'Assault Weapons' in the Peoples Republic of California. While I have major issues with the potential misuse of the registration database created by CCW, I also remember that when law enforcement tried to confiscate the 'Assault Weapons' more than 250,000 Californians refused to turn in their weapons. I have not noticed mass arrests of non-compliant firearms owners in California.
That said, I still believe the 'liberal' (look the word up in the dictionary, it doesn't really fit dems at all) agenda in this country is to effect total disarmament of civilians. I do not trust them to refrain from abusing any bit of information they can get their hands on and I still choose not to surrender a God-given Right and accept it back from the state as a priviledge.
As firearms enthusiasts, could we please curb some of the hostility evident in this thread?
Baba Louie
New member
Whilst others debate "sneaky", I wonder how THEY will define "ILLEGAL SALES"? If I sell my gun to some guy in Reno with no paperwork, will that still be legal or will a provision of this bill make that ILLEGAL? How will they know I HAD a gun to sell? How will they know I sold it? Or to whom I sold it?
Will this "alleged" sale make me a "domestic terrorist" with all the fun implications thereof?
And how many angels can and do dance on the head of a pin?
Not enough info to warrant spirited debate over sneaky, crime scene guns or illegal sales... Yet. Perchance the NRA et all will stay tuned and only compromise a little, yet again. Perchance if there is no major change or shift in power in Congress come this November, this will all be a moot point and the bill will never get out of committee.
Maybe it's time to gear up and volunteer for the proper Congressional candidates races right now (if it's not too late already) in an effort to avoid all this fal-de-ral.
Also, IMO, no matter what either party says, no politician feels real good about allowing the unwashed (that's you & me) complete & free access to tools of power that could potentially STOP their political life... so they must do something... or say they are doing something... 'cause they like being in power. And we're a threat. And that's the way Madison et al wanted it.
steelheart
Moderator
Roger that, M14. Our rights are not given by "The Government," nor can they be lawfully/constitutionally taken away by "The Government." That's something we all need to not lose sight of.
welcome to the dance
The original post was interesting, not unexpected, it is the kind of thing these people do. Then, somehow, we went dancing. We talked about a lot of things that I didn't get out of the original post. Most were related, somewhat.
Registration leads to confiscation. Historically demonstrated repeatedly. For all of us who say "it can't happen here", it already has. Just not nationwide. Yet.
A national database of firearms used in crimes AND illegal sales. What possible use could that be? Let us just look at this for a moment, (not what you know they will try to make of it down the road) what can one do with a database of firearms used in crimes? What good is it? How would it help solve any crimes? In order to be in the database, wouldn't law enforcement already have the gun? If they have the gun, what further crimes could it be used in? Seems like a dead end (and waste of our money) to me. I see no practical use for such a database. Can anyone out there come up with one?
I DO, however, see a POLITICAL use for such a database. After you have figures that you can say are "proof" that criminals use "Gun X" more than any other, then you tell the sheeple that in order to be safe, we must outlaw "Gun X". Then Gun Y, then Gun Z. etc. What other use can such a database be?
Anybody remember back when cops carried .38 revolvers? Anybody remember what studies said killed the most cops back then?
The .38 revolver. The cop's own gun. I guess we must have banned them, cause almost no cops carry them today.
The original post was interesting, not unexpected, it is the kind of thing these people do. Then, somehow, we went dancing. We talked about a lot of things that I didn't get out of the original post. Most were related, somewhat.
Registration leads to confiscation. Historically demonstrated repeatedly. For all of us who say "it can't happen here", it already has. Just not nationwide. Yet.
A national database of firearms used in crimes AND illegal sales. What possible use could that be? Let us just look at this for a moment, (not what you know they will try to make of it down the road) what can one do with a database of firearms used in crimes? What good is it? How would it help solve any crimes? In order to be in the database, wouldn't law enforcement already have the gun? If they have the gun, what further crimes could it be used in? Seems like a dead end (and waste of our money) to me. I see no practical use for such a database. Can anyone out there come up with one?
I DO, however, see a POLITICAL use for such a database. After you have figures that you can say are "proof" that criminals use "Gun X" more than any other, then you tell the sheeple that in order to be safe, we must outlaw "Gun X". Then Gun Y, then Gun Z. etc. What other use can such a database be?
Anybody remember back when cops carried .38 revolvers? Anybody remember what studies said killed the most cops back then?
The .38 revolver. The cop's own gun. I guess we must have banned them, cause almost no cops carry them today.
steelheart
Moderator
There are people on this forum that will throw a "feces fit" any time you point out that Democrat politicians - Hillary Clinton in the example given in post #1 - want to destroy our right to arms. They just can't handle the truth.
They will say and do anything to try to discredit anyone who calls Hillary Clinton and her Democrat comrades what they are - antigun/antifreedom bigots who seek to make us a nation of helpless sheep, unable to resist their socialist agenda.
Someone once said that the Democrat approach to any issue, but to gun issues in particular is: "If the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if neither is on your side, yell, scream, rant rave and throw a tantrum until you get your way."
This thread illustrates that method - in spades.
There's no denying that, yet some tried to do so. A database of "criminal" guns is just the first step. Give them that, and they will be back, demanding a database of ALL guns and who owns them.
Tens of millions of armed citizens is the only thing that stands in the way of socialist rule. They know this, which is why citizen disarmament is the holy grail of the Democrat/socialist political movement.
y'know, you make good points but none of your pontificating has yet to prove that their goals are genuinely malevolent in nature. there are many people in this country that want guns gone for the sheer goal of safety because, as we all know, guns are designed to kill people. the fact that we disagree with their methods and arguments, the fact that we consider their position wrong, does not inherently suggest that they strive to oppress us
I also find it amusing that you never post these kinds of threads about republicans taking away our first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights. I understand if you disagree but I believe freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to privacy are equally as important.
I also find it amusing that you never post these kinds of threads about republicans taking away our first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights. I understand if you disagree but I believe freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to privacy are equally as important.
steelheart
Moderator
A disarmed people are a powerless people
I agree with you that all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are equally important. However, The Second Amendment is the underpinning of all the rest of our rights - it is the foundation of the Bill of Rights. It secures all our other rights. Destroy it and the rest will collapse in a heap of rubble.
That is why I am so concerned about our right to arms.
No other provision in the Bill of Rights has suffered such relentless, savage and insidious nonstop attacks over the years as has the Second Amendment. There's a reason for that - the same reason the Brits tried to disarm the colonists: A disarmed people are a powerless people.
Chairman Mao recognized this when he said: "Politcal power springs from the barrel of a gun." Take the people's guns and you take their political power.
You say that there is no malevolent intention; I disagree. Why are politicians - Democrat politicians in particular - so fixated on disarming the citizens of this nation?
One reason - they want to rule over a nation of powerless people.
If the politicians are so willing to bash our First, Second, Fourth and Fifth amendment rights while facing a nation of armed citizens, you may bank on the fact that they will be 20 times as arrogant, power-hungry and arbitrary if given the reigns to a nation of disarmed and powerless citizens.
Seems to me that there is no shortage of those types of posts already! Those points have been abundantly covered by many others.
I agree with you that all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are equally important. However, The Second Amendment is the underpinning of all the rest of our rights - it is the foundation of the Bill of Rights. It secures all our other rights. Destroy it and the rest will collapse in a heap of rubble.
That is why I am so concerned about our right to arms.
No other provision in the Bill of Rights has suffered such relentless, savage and insidious nonstop attacks over the years as has the Second Amendment. There's a reason for that - the same reason the Brits tried to disarm the colonists: A disarmed people are a powerless people.
Chairman Mao recognized this when he said: "Politcal power springs from the barrel of a gun." Take the people's guns and you take their political power.
These people have been sold a bill of goods by the politicians who seek to disarm us for their own purposes. The simplemindedness and gullibility of these people knows no bounds. Joseph Stalin referred to these types as "useful idiots." They participate in bringing about the destruction of their own rights and work to strip us all of our right to arms out of their own ignorance.
You say that there is no malevolent intention; I disagree. Why are politicians - Democrat politicians in particular - so fixated on disarming the citizens of this nation?
One reason - they want to rule over a nation of powerless people.
If the politicians are so willing to bash our First, Second, Fourth and Fifth amendment rights while facing a nation of armed citizens, you may bank on the fact that they will be 20 times as arrogant, power-hungry and arbitrary if given the reigns to a nation of disarmed and powerless citizens.
- Status