I work for a government agency, you're all under arrest. I'll be mailing you your court summons soon.
There really isn't a need to be that paranoid about it, because it is never going to happen.
It is a hypothetical poll stating you would fight for your constitutional rights.
Besides, if you look at my link further up the thread, you will see blatant flaunting of illegal acts is common, and I doubt all of their doors were kicked in.
No, but you did say that the ATF breaking down their doors was a hypothetical scenario. It would be nice if it were. They are not only not a bastion of the goodness of law (no one in the federal government is, I don't think: a sensible Sheriff or maybe state-level judge is about as high as I think that can go), but are a bastion of incompetence and civilian endangerment (and, occasionally, mass killing).I didn't say anything about the ATF being a bastion of goodness and law.
No, but you did say that the ATF breaking down their doors was a hypothetical scenario. It would be nice if it were. They are not only not a bastion of the goodness of law (no one in the federal government is, I don't think: a sensible Sheriff or maybe state-level judge is about as high as I think that can go), but are a bastion of incompetence and civilian endangerment (and, occasionally, mass killing).
His dog came over to my house after he finished with those guy's guns.
This fat looking dog found its way into my home; it smelled like gunpowder. Hey, did anybody see my guns? I can't seem to find them anymore...
If only it were so simple as Obama owning stock in something like Smith & Wesson. The government blatantly hates the idea of an armed citizenry. They know bloodshed and civil war could start if they grab too aggressively. They'll disarm us gradually, like that feinstein law where you can't pass your guns on to your children.
Time to join the NRA...
That if a gun-grab did come to pass, the best way to make it backfire would be to use the ATF as enforcers.So what are we talking about? I have no idea.
Wait what? You can't pass your firearms onto your children? This is news to me.
Feinstein makes grandfathered "assault weapons" not transferable.
I dont have any guns or 67k rounds of ammunition
How is enforcing that even possible? And do you have any links? I'm just curious to read up on it.
My brain is screaming for the rationalization that supports a State or Federal compelling need trumping an explicit Right contained in the Constitution. An assault weapon is consistent with the 'defend against tyranny' and 'defend against invasion' and possibly even 'self defense' and probably not consistent with 'hunting' but, dual or multi purpose was the notion of the day back then...
I agree owning and bearing a bazooka is out there but if you can bear it... you can... You can't easily bear a canon nor a tank or a howitzer so I'd agree that does not fall under the 'Right'.
It seems that no Right guaranteed by the Constitution of this land of freedom is had without some price paid by some of the citizens... it may be a rather irrelevant price like Gay Marriage to the hardened Christian or the very relevant and sad loss of life caused by some nut. But that is the price we should expect to pay...
Seek to change the Constitution to reflect a new or updated view to the Rights but don't try to do an end run around this Right and seek to maintain as sacrosanct other Rights.... It seems ALL rights should be defended as long as they exist... AND we should be willing to pay the price those Rights create....
Seems to me...
Correction, Sandeagles dog will wet itself when the ATF comes looking for our guns.
Doubt it would ever happen...but, if it became illegal I would turn them in. Not going to jail over something like that.
I agree that the gun-grabbers are just warming up and they worry gun owners because they will pass laws that have no logical bearing, case in point NY's mag size limit. It is impossible now to buy many otherwise-legal guns in NY simply because many do not have a 7 round mag that fits and thus shops are not stocking and/or will have to take off shelves come April once the grace period is up.
Registration serves no purpose other than to seize the weapon later. This is why a massive percentage of owners will not do it and why the didn't in Canada, either.
Gun owners are worried for very good reason that registration is a precursor to an eventual disarming. Given that the 2008 heller case had 4 dissents in the Supreme Court, it is completely reasonable to expect a good chance of a similar case in our life times and a different set of justices deems 2nd does not guarantee right to self defense and thus begins the gun confiscation.
I don't even own a gun but I am relaying how many see it and I absolutely agree with them.
Registration can serve a lot of purposes.
1.If it requires renewal its a way to keep track of the person's fitness(no new felonies, no new mental health issues)
2. It would make it much easier to track a (stolen)weapon used in a crime.
3. It would make strawman purchases and sales more difficult.
4. It would make it easier for a police officer to know if a person he encounters has a right to possess the weapon he finds with them.
In the real world registration wouldn't make it easier to seize everyone's guns anyway. I don't understand what scenario people envisage where registration would make any difference. People could resist a tyrannical ruler whether they're registered or not. And the Army of a tyrannical ruler could disarm the citizenry whether weapons are registered or not. Look at Fallujha, think those weapon were registered ?
There's no practical difference.
This can be done without registration, such as with an ID (look up FOID). Strange that it's done in Illinois, but I think it's a good way to handle it.Registration can serve a lot of purposes.
1.If it requires renewal its a way to keep track of the person's fitness(no new felonies, no new mental health issues)
Somewhat true, assuming the S/N is still there.2. It would make it much easier to track a (stolen)weapon used in a crime.
Not initially. It would only make them significantly more difficult for future attempts, after a weapon were tracked to a given straw purchaser.3. It would make strawman purchases and sales more difficult.
Again, this can be done without registering the weapon. In addition, quite a few states give cards for pistol permits, and almost all, if not all, have cards for CCW. No weapon registration needed, or useful.4. It would make it easier for a police officer to know if a person he encounters has a right to possess the weapon he finds with them.
That it has been done, and we know there are members of Congress who would like to make it happen across the U.S..In the real world registration wouldn't make it easier to seize everyone's guns anyway. I don't understand what scenario people envisage where registration would make any difference.
Sure, but it'd be a whole lot easier all-around for said rulers not to have that information edge.People could resist a tyrannical ruler whether they're registered or not.
I know you smiley faced but this isn't sound logic. I'm a "law abiding citizen". If a new law came out that said I need to eat two ounces of fresh shit every morning before work, I'd refuse and then I'd be a criminal.LOL, and I thought all you firearm enthusiasts in this thread claimed to be "law abiding citizens". Well, you'd have to either obey that law or be no better than those gun toting criminals you guys always want to distiguish yourselves from huh?
Some good points, but absolutely it would make seizing weapons easier because you know who to target. Your first point easily can be countered by saying don't register guns, register people. After all that's what you're getting at. Second one, just encourage owners to write down (for their records) serial numbers of their guns. If one is stolen it can be given to police. 3) with sufficient penalties in place for straw buying I think it will be substantially shut down. Universal background checks along with a low level felony for a straw purchase will cut down illegal guns massively. 4) is the same as 1) and dealt with by registering a person a gun owner not his weapons.Registration can serve a lot of purposes.
1.If it requires renewal its a way to keep track of the person's fitness(no new felonies, no new mental health issues)
2. It would make it much easier to track a (stolen)weapon used in a crime.
3. It would make strawman purchases and sales more difficult.
4. It would make it easier for a police officer to know if a person he encounters has a right to possess the weapon he finds with them.
In the real world registration wouldn't make it easier to seize everyone's guns anyway. I don't understand what scenario people envisage where registration would make any difference. People could resist a tyrannical ruler whether they're registered or not. And the Army of a tyrannical ruler could disarm the citizenry whether weapons are registered or not. Look at Fallujha, think those weapon were registered ?
There's no practical difference.