BreacherUp!
New member
No , I wish you could walk a mile in some PFC's shoes, or an officer on the beat. But that would tarnish your elitist, above the common man stature.
But, since you ask. The ocean is quite big.
Your thoughts on Firearm Registration
- Thread starter BreacherUp!
- Start date
But, since you ask. The ocean is quite big.
BreacherUp!
New member
Edison,
Really, Edison. I'll be sure to waste EVERY body's time and scope out YOUR house for the next SWAT hit.
I took no such oath; at least not with that pathetic abortion of words.
Really, Edison. I'll be sure to waste EVERY body's time and scope out YOUR house for the next SWAT hit.
Edison Carter
New member
Welll excuuuuuse me!
What did you take an oath to?
Follow orders, stomp kittens and shoot grandmothers in bed?
What should we expect?
EC
What did you take an oath to?
Follow orders, stomp kittens and shoot grandmothers in bed?
What should we expect?
EC
chemist308
New member
Short background check good. I don't think anyone wants a paroled drug dealer or armed robber buying a gun legally. Make it harder for them.
Firearms registration bad. It's legal to own a chainsaw and I don't have to register that. A gun is just a tool. Registration is a way for the government to take your guns if/when they try to get rid of the second amendment.
The real problem is that if the true need ever arose there could never be another successful revolutionary war in a country such as this unless the military actually backed it. That was the intent of the second amendment.
Firearms registration bad. It's legal to own a chainsaw and I don't have to register that. A gun is just a tool. Registration is a way for the government to take your guns if/when they try to get rid of the second amendment.
The real problem is that if the true need ever arose there could never be another successful revolutionary war in a country such as this unless the military actually backed it. That was the intent of the second amendment.
BreacherUp!
New member
Butch, you're quite right.
well this thread got ugly
but I'll try and keep it breathing anyway.
I understand some persons have been rather hostile, but I was attempting to seriously inquire. So if we could procede in that manner, it would be greatly appreciated by me.
Terribly sorry about confusing the oaths. So we're talking oath of office then right?
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
OK, nonetheless you are swearing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." correct?
Now, you are asserting that you do not have the right to interpret the Constitution yourself, rather that SCOTUS has that right, which they took from you, have I got that correct?
So now I would like to know how *you* know SCOTUS has that right? Is it possible for you to know that SCOTUS has the right to interpret the Constitution, if you did not read and interpret the Constitution to say this?
Ignoring that for a moment, is it possible for you to know SCOTUS' interpretation without interpreting their rulings on the Constitution?
I would assert that the answer to both of these questions is no. Which would then force us to conclude that at some point along the way, you have to interpret the Constitution's meaning in some way, shape or form. You simply cannot pass the buck of interpretation. This I believe is a major point of contention some other people on this thread have been trying to articulate. And I am attempting to bring it out into the open in order to improve the dialogue.
-Morgan
but I'll try and keep it breathing anyway.
I understand some persons have been rather hostile, but I was attempting to seriously inquire. So if we could procede in that manner, it would be greatly appreciated by me.
Terribly sorry about confusing the oaths. So we're talking oath of office then right?
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
OK, nonetheless you are swearing to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." correct?
Now, you are asserting that you do not have the right to interpret the Constitution yourself, rather that SCOTUS has that right, which they took from you, have I got that correct?
So now I would like to know how *you* know SCOTUS has that right? Is it possible for you to know that SCOTUS has the right to interpret the Constitution, if you did not read and interpret the Constitution to say this?
Ignoring that for a moment, is it possible for you to know SCOTUS' interpretation without interpreting their rulings on the Constitution?
I would assert that the answer to both of these questions is no. Which would then force us to conclude that at some point along the way, you have to interpret the Constitution's meaning in some way, shape or form. You simply cannot pass the buck of interpretation. This I believe is a major point of contention some other people on this thread have been trying to articulate. And I am attempting to bring it out into the open in order to improve the dialogue.
-Morgan
Breacher, I explained why your chosen philosphy deeply concerns me, and suddenly I'm your enemy. I present a hypothetical amendment -- just as hypothetical as your registration scheme (which I'd never go along with, so it would make me a criminal) -- and I'm your enemy because my hypothetical amendment would make you a criminal.
You can dish out hypotheticals that are abhorrent to me, but you can't take them when they're abhorrent to you. You resort to waxing about how glorious your job is, and how much you've sacrificed, which is irrelevant to me because I don't choose a job where I'm ordered to violate other people's rights. If under my hypothetical amendment you decided you wanted your rights back, you could quit your job. Your _chosen_ profession and your _chosen_ political philosophy are what precipitated this conflict.
I'm sorry I was not clear. Government employee to me means a public sector employee, not including military. See below for the distinction I make between military and LE.
You can dish out hypotheticals that are abhorrent to me, but you can't take them when they're abhorrent to you. You resort to waxing about how glorious your job is, and how much you've sacrificed, which is irrelevant to me because I don't choose a job where I'm ordered to violate other people's rights. If under my hypothetical amendment you decided you wanted your rights back, you could quit your job. Your _chosen_ profession and your _chosen_ political philosophy are what precipitated this conflict.
I'm sorry I was not clear. Government employee to me means a public sector employee, not including military. See below for the distinction I make between military and LE.
You're right. I don't know what I'm talking about because I refuse to get paid to participate in the State's unconstitutional machinery, where my desire for law and order would conflict with my desire not to stomp on my fellow citizens.BreacherUp said:
Are you equating government service (LEO included) with Military service? In my view, they are very different. The military is not (supposed to be) in a position where it can infringe on citizens' rights. For the most part, this barrier has held up. Therefore, troops should not be subject to civil liberties restrictictions, aside from whatever the military itself deems necessary for operational reasons.blackmind said:
What rights do I have today? What rights will I have tomorrow? Is Breacher protecting any of them, and would Breacher protect them if he got orders to the contrary?Rangefinder said:
Rangefinder
New member
My comments in the latter part of this thread were more a result of seeing it rapidly turning into a personal pi$$ing match. But it does still stand to reason that you shouldn't base too strong an opinion about someone's ethics versus their duty unless you've seen it in action.
Yes, I've had my time performing duties that I didn't particularly like, sometimes flat-out hated. Did I still do them? Yes, because that's what I was sworn to do. The context doesn't change, be it from a Military, civil gov't position, LE, or a manager at the local convenient store. You're going to be told to do things you don't agree with from time to time unless you're the one at the very top of the chain. HOW you perform those duties I think says a lot more. I have a lot of respect for LEO's on every level--why? Because I've been there, and I still maintain close contact with many of them on the local level all the way up to Fed level. We've all talked at some point about the very subjects being discussed here. Honestly, the general concensus has been (quoting a friend in the FBI) "Hey, if word ever came down that the second amendment was going to crash, I'd be getting word out to everyone I could to start hiding them [their guns]." Now, had that statement gone a little differently, like "when it happens, look out--you're on my list"... Well, I might have a different opinion.
Yes, I've had my time performing duties that I didn't particularly like, sometimes flat-out hated. Did I still do them? Yes, because that's what I was sworn to do. The context doesn't change, be it from a Military, civil gov't position, LE, or a manager at the local convenient store. You're going to be told to do things you don't agree with from time to time unless you're the one at the very top of the chain. HOW you perform those duties I think says a lot more. I have a lot of respect for LEO's on every level--why? Because I've been there, and I still maintain close contact with many of them on the local level all the way up to Fed level. We've all talked at some point about the very subjects being discussed here. Honestly, the general concensus has been (quoting a friend in the FBI) "Hey, if word ever came down that the second amendment was going to crash, I'd be getting word out to everyone I could to start hiding them [their guns]." Now, had that statement gone a little differently, like "when it happens, look out--you're on my list"... Well, I might have a different opinion.
I came from California
When the "dangerous weapons" ban went into effect in Cali. on Jan. 1, 2000, one was supposed to register a so-called "dangerous weapon." I went on the Cal. DOJ website and couldn't figure out if my Cobray PM-11 and PM-12 qualified as a dangerous weapon as the site was too vague. I had also just purchased an SLR-95 from a private party, in a deal that was too good to pass up. ($300 for the brand-new rifle, 10 30-round mags and 1500 rounds of ammo). It wasn't clear if this had to be registered, either, as, according to the site, it didn't have the features of a "dangerous weapon."
I was of a liberal mind at that time. People were encouraged to use civil disobedience to try to obtain a means. A few years prior, when proposition 187 was introduced to the Cal. ballot, illegal aliens marched in defiant protest on major streets and boulevards carrying Mexican flags. Conscientious objectors to the Viet Nam War were considered near saints as they were sainted in Canada. I, too, felt the urge to protest, and never registered my guns, due to the vague laws at the time.
It was funny, as now I was thinking that I should have registered my guns. What defiant attitude to openly and legally possess my guns within the city limits of Los Angeles when the wonderful state government did not want anyone to own them by passing such a law. This would have been the ultimate form of protest, in reverse. If the pressure ever came on to confiscate, which apparently it hasn't so far, I could have moved out of state with my California registered guns. I guess I'll never know...
When the "dangerous weapons" ban went into effect in Cali. on Jan. 1, 2000, one was supposed to register a so-called "dangerous weapon." I went on the Cal. DOJ website and couldn't figure out if my Cobray PM-11 and PM-12 qualified as a dangerous weapon as the site was too vague. I had also just purchased an SLR-95 from a private party, in a deal that was too good to pass up. ($300 for the brand-new rifle, 10 30-round mags and 1500 rounds of ammo). It wasn't clear if this had to be registered, either, as, according to the site, it didn't have the features of a "dangerous weapon."
I was of a liberal mind at that time. People were encouraged to use civil disobedience to try to obtain a means. A few years prior, when proposition 187 was introduced to the Cal. ballot, illegal aliens marched in defiant protest on major streets and boulevards carrying Mexican flags. Conscientious objectors to the Viet Nam War were considered near saints as they were sainted in Canada. I, too, felt the urge to protest, and never registered my guns, due to the vague laws at the time.
It was funny, as now I was thinking that I should have registered my guns. What defiant attitude to openly and legally possess my guns within the city limits of Los Angeles when the wonderful state government did not want anyone to own them by passing such a law. This would have been the ultimate form of protest, in reverse. If the pressure ever came on to confiscate, which apparently it hasn't so far, I could have moved out of state with my California registered guns. I guess I'll never know...
I came into this thread late and I haven't read all the replies so I apologise in advance if what I have to say has already been covered.
I am in Australia, in the state of South Australia. Registration has been in force here since 1916. To the best of my knowledge it has never been responsible for the solving of a single crime and it will not help to identify you as the owner of a stolen gun. I lost six handguns in a burglary about 10 years ago and it certainly didn't help me get any of them back. I have not seen them from that day to this, so it's pretty useless in that regard as well.
What registration does extremely well is identify every firearm you legally possess to the government so that when (not if) they decide to move against you you don't have a leg to stand on. Registration means confiscation? You bet!
I am in Australia, in the state of South Australia. Registration has been in force here since 1916. To the best of my knowledge it has never been responsible for the solving of a single crime and it will not help to identify you as the owner of a stolen gun. I lost six handguns in a burglary about 10 years ago and it certainly didn't help me get any of them back. I have not seen them from that day to this, so it's pretty useless in that regard as well.
What registration does extremely well is identify every firearm you legally possess to the government so that when (not if) they decide to move against you you don't have a leg to stand on. Registration means confiscation? You bet!
Gun Registration Equalls Gun Control
I copied this from another forum but it was asked it be passed along, so this seems prudent.
Subject: Gun Control Anyone?
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. --------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
"educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In
the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. (Note that, while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey
is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the ELDERLY.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this
information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.
I copied this from another forum but it was asked it be passed along, so this seems prudent.
Subject: Gun Control Anyone?
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. --------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
"educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In
the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. (Note that, while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey
is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the ELDERLY.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this
information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.
OneInchGroup
New member
Gun Control - Bravo25
Bravo 25 - Any way we can get your post made into a Battle Flag? We have a flagpole here in Baltimore, at Fort McHenry, where a lot of us would like to fly it, if we could get any of the liberal nitwit anti-gun politicians here to let us do it. Of course in a state that contains one city and half of another (Washington DC) that between them have more deaths from gunfire on a daily basis than all of "war-torn" Iraq, gun control seems to be a favorite goal rather than an obviously stupid idea.
Since 99% of gun deaths in the 2 cities are either the result of gunbattles between drug dealers or collateral damage when they miss each other and hit civilians, the kind of gun control that would be truly useful would be teaching the bad guys better marksmanship skills. ( Maybe Eddie Eagle could help?)
Most collateral damage lately has been from that Movies/TV one-handed horizontal grip, where sights and grip are parallel with the ground, and only God knows where the pistol is actually pointed. Once again Hollywood is being totally helpful, dramatising that stupid stance.
If the BGs could only be on target 100% of the time, then they'd just kill each other, we could then bury them and say good riddance, and the rest of us would be much better off.
Bravo 25 - Any way we can get your post made into a Battle Flag? We have a flagpole here in Baltimore, at Fort McHenry, where a lot of us would like to fly it, if we could get any of the liberal nitwit anti-gun politicians here to let us do it. Of course in a state that contains one city and half of another (Washington DC) that between them have more deaths from gunfire on a daily basis than all of "war-torn" Iraq, gun control seems to be a favorite goal rather than an obviously stupid idea.
Since 99% of gun deaths in the 2 cities are either the result of gunbattles between drug dealers or collateral damage when they miss each other and hit civilians, the kind of gun control that would be truly useful would be teaching the bad guys better marksmanship skills. ( Maybe Eddie Eagle could help?)
Most collateral damage lately has been from that Movies/TV one-handed horizontal grip, where sights and grip are parallel with the ground, and only God knows where the pistol is actually pointed. Once again Hollywood is being totally helpful, dramatising that stupid stance.
If the BGs could only be on target 100% of the time, then they'd just kill each other, we could then bury them and say good riddance, and the rest of us would be much better off.
my $.02
I just wanted to quickly chime in with my thoughts. A few things about me which might surprise you if you read on:
I live in California, and am a registered democrat. I am 31 years old, and have recently discovered shooting as a past time, although when I was younger I did alot of shooting and hunting with my dad and grandpa.
I have just recently done a major u-turn in my position on gun control. I never saw the problem with registration and gun control until just recently. I have read and studied the constitution, and have graduated from a major university so I consider myself of at least average intelligence.
However, after recently rediscovering shooting as a hobby, I was doing some research on purchasing a new weapon. I found it laughable that in California I can't buy a semi automatic with a pistol grip if it has a detachable mag, but I CAN buy one if it has a fixed mag. This of course is only one example of the stupidity of the laws here (and the federal law that expired in 2k4).
Well, this led me to question everything about gun control / regulation. I mean, to be honest it is an issue I had never really put a whole lot of thought into.
After a lot of thought these are the conclusions that I have come up with:
One reason for the second ammendment is to be able to have weapons which would allow us to defend ourselves in case of a serious crisis (war, rebellion, riots, disasters.. etc..). This to me is the reason why semi-autos should NEVER EVER be banned even if they have pistol grips, and modern "assault" features. If the government bans these rifles as they have in California, it would be a serious blow to the second ammendment. In fact it would render the second ammendment nearly meaningless, as semi-auto rifles are the standard of any soldier today...so having a militia with bolt action rifles would not be effective in standing up to semi autos in any type of battle scenario.
As far as gun registration goes, I can see how some people can say "What harm can gun registration do?" I mean on the surface it seems harmless to register a weapon if you are't going to commit a crime with it. However, one should look deeper under the surface to find the true problem with registration. I will not cover this in detail, because there have been previous posts in this thread, but registration in my opinion is the first step in elimination of weapons. I am not sure what to do about this because I am a law abiding citizen, but I would think twice about registering any weapon.
In summary, I oppose gun registration. I also oppose the assault weapons ban in california and any similar legislation. We need to take some action and try to reverse this before it is too late.
A Democrat in California Who loves Shooting
New NRA member
I just wanted to quickly chime in with my thoughts. A few things about me which might surprise you if you read on:
I live in California, and am a registered democrat. I am 31 years old, and have recently discovered shooting as a past time, although when I was younger I did alot of shooting and hunting with my dad and grandpa.
I have just recently done a major u-turn in my position on gun control. I never saw the problem with registration and gun control until just recently. I have read and studied the constitution, and have graduated from a major university so I consider myself of at least average intelligence.
However, after recently rediscovering shooting as a hobby, I was doing some research on purchasing a new weapon. I found it laughable that in California I can't buy a semi automatic with a pistol grip if it has a detachable mag, but I CAN buy one if it has a fixed mag. This of course is only one example of the stupidity of the laws here (and the federal law that expired in 2k4).
Well, this led me to question everything about gun control / regulation. I mean, to be honest it is an issue I had never really put a whole lot of thought into.
After a lot of thought these are the conclusions that I have come up with:
One reason for the second ammendment is to be able to have weapons which would allow us to defend ourselves in case of a serious crisis (war, rebellion, riots, disasters.. etc..). This to me is the reason why semi-autos should NEVER EVER be banned even if they have pistol grips, and modern "assault" features. If the government bans these rifles as they have in California, it would be a serious blow to the second ammendment. In fact it would render the second ammendment nearly meaningless, as semi-auto rifles are the standard of any soldier today...so having a militia with bolt action rifles would not be effective in standing up to semi autos in any type of battle scenario.
As far as gun registration goes, I can see how some people can say "What harm can gun registration do?" I mean on the surface it seems harmless to register a weapon if you are't going to commit a crime with it. However, one should look deeper under the surface to find the true problem with registration. I will not cover this in detail, because there have been previous posts in this thread, but registration in my opinion is the first step in elimination of weapons. I am not sure what to do about this because I am a law abiding citizen, but I would think twice about registering any weapon.
In summary, I oppose gun registration. I also oppose the assault weapons ban in california and any similar legislation. We need to take some action and try to reverse this before it is too late.
A Democrat in California Who loves Shooting
New NRA member
OneInchGroup
New member
Gun Registration
Congratulations on your new level of enlightenment. Welcome to NRA from a life member, and fellow college kid (Johns Hopkins, Class of '68). Be aware that allmost 80% of your college friends will now shun you as a mentally damaged individual and not let their kids play with yours because by association all your relatives must also be demented and besides you may have an arsenal in your house.
In the People's (Democratic) Republic of Maryland, where I reside, all these conditions apply, and the NEA union is asking teachers to take classroom surveys to discover whose homes actually harbor gun owners, so everyone can keep their children away from those people and their "Dangerous Homes". And of course here an "Arsenal" is any location with either more than 10 guns or more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition. Requires a state license.
My house qualifies on both counts. 20 bricks of .22 ammo from WalMart give you great status, here. In the PRM, there is also a ban on "Assault Pistols" that they were able to push through as part of a "Saturday Night Special" pistol ban some years ago, so those of us who owned some of them when the law got passed cannot now sell these weapons, nor may we ship them out of the state, nor may we GIVE or THROW THEM AWAY. The only legal transfer for MAC 10, Tech9, Tech22, etc. is to leave them to someone when we DIE. Then let them deal with the midnight "are all of your banned Guns Secured?" calls.
Almost every time there is a drive by shooting amongst the downtown druggies, I can expect a call from a State storm Trooper inquiring whether all my banned guns are still safe at home and would I mind if they drop by my house right now and open my gun safe (with no search warrent or probable cause) just to check? Say no, that's probable cause. Say yes, and hope there's nothing around that became illegal when you weren't paying attention.
Ah, yes, being a completely legal, law abiding gun owner is a bit of a challenge sometimes. Of course my state is also now looking favorably at California's ban of the .50 BMG rifles, figuring if the politicians there could get away with it, then PRM should try that too. Something about "no sporting purpose", a phrase no doubt learned from watching the BBC World report on local cable TV during those boring legislative sessions in Annapolis.
After all, what's so wrong about wanting to protect our chidren from potentially bad people, ones who refuse to act "right" and take orders like good little subjects should? People like you, and me, and all our forum pals, and every English or Australian citizen (Aussies are all descended from criminals anyway, you know,it started as a penal colony there...) not to mention the Germans in the 30's, the Russians in the 20's, etc. etc.
Again, welcome aboard, and abandon all hope, ye who enter here!
Congratulations on your new level of enlightenment. Welcome to NRA from a life member, and fellow college kid (Johns Hopkins, Class of '68). Be aware that allmost 80% of your college friends will now shun you as a mentally damaged individual and not let their kids play with yours because by association all your relatives must also be demented and besides you may have an arsenal in your house.
In the People's (Democratic) Republic of Maryland, where I reside, all these conditions apply, and the NEA union is asking teachers to take classroom surveys to discover whose homes actually harbor gun owners, so everyone can keep their children away from those people and their "Dangerous Homes". And of course here an "Arsenal" is any location with either more than 10 guns or more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition. Requires a state license.
My house qualifies on both counts. 20 bricks of .22 ammo from WalMart give you great status, here. In the PRM, there is also a ban on "Assault Pistols" that they were able to push through as part of a "Saturday Night Special" pistol ban some years ago, so those of us who owned some of them when the law got passed cannot now sell these weapons, nor may we ship them out of the state, nor may we GIVE or THROW THEM AWAY. The only legal transfer for MAC 10, Tech9, Tech22, etc. is to leave them to someone when we DIE. Then let them deal with the midnight "are all of your banned Guns Secured?" calls.
Almost every time there is a drive by shooting amongst the downtown druggies, I can expect a call from a State storm Trooper inquiring whether all my banned guns are still safe at home and would I mind if they drop by my house right now and open my gun safe (with no search warrent or probable cause) just to check? Say no, that's probable cause. Say yes, and hope there's nothing around that became illegal when you weren't paying attention.
Ah, yes, being a completely legal, law abiding gun owner is a bit of a challenge sometimes. Of course my state is also now looking favorably at California's ban of the .50 BMG rifles, figuring if the politicians there could get away with it, then PRM should try that too. Something about "no sporting purpose", a phrase no doubt learned from watching the BBC World report on local cable TV during those boring legislative sessions in Annapolis.
After all, what's so wrong about wanting to protect our chidren from potentially bad people, ones who refuse to act "right" and take orders like good little subjects should? People like you, and me, and all our forum pals, and every English or Australian citizen (Aussies are all descended from criminals anyway, you know,it started as a penal colony there...) not to mention the Germans in the 30's, the Russians in the 20's, etc. etc.
Again, welcome aboard, and abandon all hope, ye who enter here!
They can be taken out of state, no?
"In the PRM, there is also a ban on "Assault Pistols" that they were able to push through as part of a "Saturday Night Special" pistol ban some years ago, so those of us who owned some of them when the law got passed cannot now sell these weapons, nor may we ship them out of the state, nor may we GIVE or THROW THEM AWAY. The only legal transfer for MAC 10, Tech9, Tech22, etc. is to leave them to someone when we DIE. Then let them deal with the midnight "are all of your banned Guns Secured?" calls."
Surely the loophole is if you personally drove them out of state?
"In the PRM, there is also a ban on "Assault Pistols" that they were able to push through as part of a "Saturday Night Special" pistol ban some years ago, so those of us who owned some of them when the law got passed cannot now sell these weapons, nor may we ship them out of the state, nor may we GIVE or THROW THEM AWAY. The only legal transfer for MAC 10, Tech9, Tech22, etc. is to leave them to someone when we DIE. Then let them deal with the midnight "are all of your banned Guns Secured?" calls."
Surely the loophole is if you personally drove them out of state?
Really? 6,000,000 immigrants have come to Australia since the end of WW2, many of them from the USA. A person I count as one of my best friends is an American. My parents settled here in the 1920's.
OneInchGroup, does it bother you that before the English sent their convicts to Australia they transported them to America? Your snide remarks have no place on a forum like this.