setback for 2nd amendment...

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss Guns, Shooting, Hunting and other Outdoor Sports that involve Firearms. If you don't want to see Guns and related subjects being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you telling people that Guns shouldn't be discussed or that they should be banned. We respect your right to do so, but discussions about Gun Control and Gun Rights belong in the "I don't like guns and I want to say so." Forum and will be moved there when made in the Guns Forum.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#31

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:30 am

By Sarge's logic Hawaii is fix'n to confiscate all guns:

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/27/483749574 ... l-database

Registration is just registration; a tool to enable better enforcement of other gun laws.



User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#32

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:29 am

GregD wrote:By Sarge's logic Hawaii is fix'n to confiscate all guns:

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/27/483749574 ... l-database

Registration is just registration; a tool to enable better enforcement of other gun laws.
The expressed PURPOSE of that law is to allow them to confiscate guns from people arrested in other states, so yes, they ARE confiscating guns. It has now become simpler for the State to confiscate guns by passing more and more restrictions on ownership, or passing more reasons for taking a gun away from an owner. Making believe that is not true is one of the reasons we don't trust Gun Control advocates. They should stop lying about thier intended outcome. Their idea of "better enforcement" is to find more and more reasons to take guns away because their starting point for legislation is that people shouldn't own guns.

A contrary view to yours:
Hawaii already requires its citizens to register their firearms, making confiscation easy should someone be flagged in the system. This legislation — which has worrying implications for due process as being arrested for a crime is by no means the same as being tried and convicted of one — reveals just how easy confiscation is once the government has a list of registered gun owners.

But registration paving the way for confiscation is just part of the left’s three-pronged attack on the Second Amendment. The second part is the drive to make firearm ownership prohibitively expensive for the consumer, and firearm production prohibitively expensive for the manufacturer.
That second part is what the guy in the Huffpo article is proposing.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#33

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 7:37 am

And make no mistake, I fully support the right of the State of Hawaii to pass laws as the residents of that State see fit. If thier politicians pass laws like this and keep getting re-elected, I have no problem with that.

I'll point out to them that the places in this country that have the strictest gun laws have the highest murder and crime rates, I will resist any effort at Federal Gun Registration requirements, and I will thank God that I am living in a State like Texas that allows me to protect myself and my family as I see fit.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#34

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:06 am

sarge wrote: The expressed PURPOSE of that law is to allow them to confiscate guns from people arrested in other states, so yes, they ARE confiscating guns. It has now become simpler for the State to confiscate guns by passing more and more restrictions on ownership, or passing more reasons for taking a gun away from an owner.
Yes, registration makes it easier to confiscate guns from an individual that is no longer legally entitled to own a gun. That is one advantage. Another is to help reduce the rate at which legally owned guns become illegally owned guns. But it is not a first step toward confiscation of all guns from everybody.

I agree that many actual and proposed gun control laws accomplish nothing useful. But many existing gun control laws make a lot of sense and need effective enforcement. Universal background checks and gun registration could make enforcement much more effective.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#35

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:45 am

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote: The expressed PURPOSE of that law is to allow them to confiscate guns from people arrested in other states, so yes, they ARE confiscating guns. It has now become simpler for the State to confiscate guns by passing more and more restrictions on ownership, or passing more reasons for taking a gun away from an owner.
Yes, registration makes it easier to confiscate guns from an individual that is no longer legally entitled to own a gun. That is one advantage. Another is to help reduce the rate at which legally owned guns become illegally owned guns. But it is not a first step toward confiscation of all guns from everybody.

I agree that many actual and proposed gun control laws accomplish nothing useful. But many existing gun control laws make a lot of sense and need effective enforcement. Universal background checks and gun registration could make enforcement much more effective.
Now all you need to do is keep changing the definition of what "legally entitled to own" means and you can confiscate all the guns owned by private individuals except the rich and politically connected.

Hawaii's new law just created a new class of "not legally entitled to own" individuals, and authorizes the State to go to thier houses to take their guns without due process of law. You tell me that a law has been passed that makes it easier to take guns away from people who have registered their guns without due process of law, and then tell me that registration is not the first step for the purpose of confiscation?

I rest my case on that.

As to "Universal Backgroud Checks", that means "Universal Gun Regsitration" because the only way you can enforce that is to know where Grampa's old shotgun or the Luger Uncle Joe got from WW2 is so that when its transferred to Junior at his High School Graduation Party you can make sure Grampa or Uncle Joe did a background check on Junior. Its a very dishonest approach to get the desired result, which is gun registration, which is the first step in gun confiscation, the following steps being redefining who is "legally entitled to own". In Junior's case, it might be that he's underaged, or maybe hasn't taken a requisite class, or paid insurance, or demonstrated his ability to properly store it.

We already have near universal background checks, despite the Democrat's and the media (but I repeat myself)efforts at making it look like we don't have any at all. Most transfers of ownership that are not between a registered gun dealer and a buyer are through inheritance or sale of privately owned guns to other individuals known to the owner. You want me to do a background check on my neighbor if I sell him the .270 I no longer use for deer hunting. And please don't say that's not what you want. You might not realize that's what you want, but that's what you are proposing.

There has yet to be any mass killing perpetrated by anyone who bought thier gun without having a background check performed, which only means that its an incredibly INEFFECTIVE tool for enforcement.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#36

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:55 am

If the Orlando or San Bern or Paris or Brussels shooters got their weapons from me ( either by buying or stealing from me) and I was locked up because of the crimes they committed with those guns, does anyone think that would that put a dent in terrorist attacks?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#37

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:38 am

I always knew that Democrats were hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

Its becoming really clear to me now that they're not big fans of the 4th and 5th either.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#38

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:47 am

sarge wrote: Now all you need to do is keep changing the definition of what "legally entitled to own" means and you can confiscate all the guns owned by private individuals except the rich and politically connected.

Hawaii's new law just created a new class of "not legally entitled to own" individuals, and authorizes the State to go to thier houses to take their guns without due process of law. You tell me that a law has been passed that makes it easier to take guns away from people who have registered their guns without due process of law, and then tell me that registration is not the first step for the purpose of confiscation?

I rest my case on that.

As to "Universal Backgroud Checks", that means "Universal Gun Regsitration" because the only way you can enforce that is to know where Grampa's old shotgun or the Luger Uncle Joe got from WW2 is so that when its transferred to Junior at his High School Graduation Party you can make sure Grampa or Uncle Joe did a background check on Junior. Its a very dishonest approach to get the desired result, which is gun registration, which is the first step in gun confiscation, the following steps being redefining who is "legally entitled to own". In Junior's case, it might be that he's underaged, or maybe hasn't taken a requisite class, or paid insurance, or demonstrated his ability to properly store it.

We already have near universal background checks, despite the Democrat's and the media (but I repeat myself)efforts at making it look like we don't have any at all. Most transfers of ownership that are not between a registered gun dealer and a buyer are through inheritance or sale of privately owned guns to other individuals known to the owner. You want me to do a background check on my neighbor if I sell him the .270 I no longer use for deer hunting. And please don't say that's not what you want. You might not realize that's what you want, but that's what you are proposing.

There has yet to be any mass killing perpetrated by anyone who bought thier gun without having a background check performed, which only means that its an incredibly INEFFECTIVE tool for enforcement.
Yes. Universal background check does mean universal gun registration. As you say, it currently is "near universal" and then point out a few examples to show that, in fact, it is not. Several significant loopholes. Yes, I want you do either do a background check on your neighbor and register the change of ownership, OR I want you to have liability if that gun is then used to do damage. Your choice. I have no issues with people owning guns responsibly, but if a gun gets used illegally I want the responsible parties held accountable.

And if you want to use "confiscation" to characterize enforcement of gun laws, fine. I prefer that gun laws be effectively enforced. Do you disagree with that?

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#39

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:36 am

What, exactly, are the "significant loop holes"?

If I sell my car to my registered car to my neighbor, and he then registers it and uses it to kidnap a child, will I be held liable for that, too?

The responsible party for the commission of a crime is the criminal.

I disagree that "enforcement" necessarily entails confiscation.

I think it means that you prosecute the laws now in effect and pursue the maximum punishment.

Something the current Administration is not doing
While President Obama decries gun violence and presses for more laws to restrict ownership, his Justice Department has prosecuted 25 percent fewer cases referred by the main law enforcement agency charged with reducing firearms violence across the country, a computer analysis of U.S. prosecution data shows.
Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with 6,791 during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2008, according to data obtained from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.
The 2013 totals represent a 42 percent decline from the record number of 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under Mr. Bush, according to the data.
Perhaps if this Administration actually enforced the laws in effect now, we'd have fewer killings.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#40

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:41 am

Seriously dude.

If you really respect gun ownership, you should be screaming that this administration is falling down on the job of enforcement of gun crimes rather than demanding new laws for them to ignore.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#41

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:02 pm

sarge wrote:What, exactly, are the "significant loop holes"?
The ones you mentioned - private sales between individuals. Because it not only includes you giving a gun to your grandson but it also includes you selling a gun to someone you don't know.

sarge wrote: If I sell my car to my registered car to my neighbor, and he then registers it and uses it to kidnap a child, will I be held liable for that, too?
As you are not the registered owner of the car (your neighbor registered it) you are not liable. More typically, a prudent car seller files a form with the county indicating that they no longer own the car so that if it causes damage (or doesn't pay a toll on the toll road or runs a red light at a camera-monitored intersection) they don't get the bill.
sarge wrote: The responsible party for the commission of a crime is the criminal.
What is the criminal act, though? Shouldn't it be a criminal act to provide a gun to someone that is not legally entitled to have one?
sarge wrote: I disagree that "enforcement" necessarily entails confiscation.
Ok, we don't agree.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#42

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:27 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:What, exactly, are the "significant loop holes"?
The ones you mentioned - private sales between individuals. Because it not only includes you giving a gun to your grandson but it also includes you selling a gun to someone you don't know.
so---Grampa giving his shotgun to Junior is a "significant loophole"?

OK.

I have a different definition of "significant", which would be "A majority of them are used in crimes."

How many guns transferred between individuals without a background check have been used in crimes?

sarge wrote: If I sell my car to my registered car to my neighbor, and he then registers it and uses it to kidnap a child, will I be held liable for that, too?
As you are not the registered owner of the car (your neighbor registered it) you are not liable. More typically, a prudent car seller files a form with the county indicating that they no longer own the car so that if it causes damage (or doesn't pay a toll on the toll road or runs a red light at a camera-monitored intersection) they don't get the bill.
But you want the previously registered owner of a gun to be held criminally liable for the acts of the newly registered owner, too---even those who would pass a background check. (Remember, in your world all guns are registered so you can keep track of ownership, so he'd be registered too.)

You can't be prosecuted for any crime committed with any object you sell to another human, except for the one object specifically mentioned in the Constitution that The People have a right to own.

So much for "Equal Protection Under The Law."
sarge wrote: The responsible party for the commission of a crime is the criminal.
What is the criminal act, though? Shouldn't it be a criminal act to provide a gun to someone that is not legally entitled to have one?
Its already against the law. If you know Junior has committed a felony (and its likely you would), its illegal for you to give it to him. If he commits a crime with that gun, you can be prosecuted for a Federal Crime, unless its the Obama Administration doing the enforcement, and then you've got a 1 in 4 chance that you won't be.

If you are unaware that your neighbor has committed a felony, or he hides that fact from you, and he commits a crime with his gun, you can't be prosecuted---just as you can't be prosecuted for selling a car to a guy who has had his license revoked because of multiple DWI's, or the guy who stabs someone with the Mora Companion you traded for a new water filter.

You either have to make everybody liable for the crimes committed by people who they have sold, traded, or gifted to someone else, or you don't do it to any.

That's what "Equal Protection" from prosecution means.
sarge wrote: I disagree that "enforcement" necessarily entails confiscation.
Ok, we don't agree.
Well, that's the problem.

But that's because you think people shouldn't own guns in the first place, so your idea of 'enforcement" is to think of as many ways as possible to deprive them of the right.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#43

Post by sarge » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:49 pm

Find a solution that does the following:

Protects the right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms as an Enumerated Right under the Second Amendment which has been affirmed three times by SCOTUS.

Allows them to use those Arms for Self Protection as an Un-enumerated Right under the 9th Amendment as affirmed twice by SCOTUS.

Protects them for deprivation of their Property without Due Process as an Enumerated Right under the 4th and 5th Amendments, which has been affirmed countless times by SCOTUS.

Provides them with Equal Protection Under The Law as provided for by the 14th Amendment.

OR:

Repeal the Second Amendment using the process outlined by the Constitution and has been used successfully 27 times in the history of the nation

OR:

Abandon all pretense that the Democrat Party actually cares about the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and is willing to establish precedents that can be used in the future to limit all of the others in order to deprive The People of the Enumerated Rights of the 2nd Amendment without going through the trouble of repealing it.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#44

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:58 pm

sarge wrote: How many guns transferred between individuals without a background check have been used in crimes?
Where do all the guns used in crimes come from?
sarge wrote: But you want the previously registered owner of a gun to be held criminally liable for the acts of the newly registered owner, too---even those who would pass a background check. (Remember, in your world all guns are registered so you can keep track of ownership, so he'd be registered too.)
No. Your liability ends when the transfer of ownership is registered, and that transfer process would document that the purchaser has passed a background check at the time of transfer.
sarge wrote: You can't be prosecuted for any crime committed with any object you sell to another human, except for the one object specifically mentioned in the Constitution that The People have a right to own.

So much for "Equal Protection Under The Law."
You can be held liable for damages caused by a motor vehicle that is registered to you. It won't be a crime but it will cost you money. You can be held liable for someone trespassing on your property and hurting themselves.

sarge wrote: Well, that's the problem.

But that's because you think people shouldn't own guns in the first place, so your idea of 'enforcement" is to think of as many ways as possible to deprive them of the right.
BS. I have owned guns in the past and may in the future. BTW, one was stolen when a house was burgled; hiding it under the bed wasn't an effective means of securing it, Duh. I have family members with guns, as well as many acquaintances. I am just fine with assault weapons owned by responsible people.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: setback for 2nd amendment...

#45

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:08 pm

sarge wrote:Find a solution that does the following:

Protects the right of The People to Keep and Bear Arms as an Enumerated Right under the Second Amendment which has been affirmed three times by SCOTUS.

Allows them to use those Arms for Self Protection as an Un-enumerated Right under the 9th Amendment as affirmed twice by SCOTUS.

Protects them for deprivation of their Property without Due Process as an Enumerated Right under the 4th and 5th Amendments, which has been affirmed countless times by SCOTUS.

Provides them with Equal Protection Under The Law as provided for by the 14th Amendment.
Universal background checks with universal registration is consistent with all of this. Whether it would actually help reduce gun violence is another question. But there are a LOT of guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them; those guns are coming from SOMEWHERE.

sarge wrote: Abandon all pretense that the Democrat Party actually cares about the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution and is willing to establish precedents that can be used in the future to limit all of the others in order to deprive The People of the Enumerated Rights of the 2nd Amendment without going through the trouble of repealing it.
I'm advocating for a specific policy, not a party.

Post Reply

Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest