(06-30-2016 12:15 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What?

Am I supposed to respond to a picture of a letter that I could have drawn up on word? Who received it. Whose legal guns were confiscated?

New York has a law outlawing certain guns and a law against them holding more than 5 rounds. You aren't allowed to have them.

That's not a registration that leads to a confiscation of ALL guns. It's a law breaker being held accountable for not being in compliance with the law.

That's it.... move those goal posts.
You know you are wrong. You have been proven wrong. As the youth say, you have been pwned.

And in closing, I'll drop this here again, in case you missed it the first time...

Dude...jump off. You're making an argument I'm not even disputing. I posted that video because I thought it was funny. Nothing more. I'm not for gun bans or second amendment repeal. Move along.

(06-30-2016 12:18 AM)muffinman Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 06:29 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think the left argues this wrong. I would just argue for liability. We have too loose gun laws. They should be registered. Heck have a bazooka for all I care but if that bazooka is used in s crime it's your ass. Make it so painful when a weapon owned by you commits a crime people become much more cognizant of their actions. That Adam Lanza got his hands on a weapon? Same with that crazy guy who killed the Batman theatre goers and the dypshyt who shot that representative from Arizona. When crazy people get guns someone should pay. If you have to get liability insurance to drive a car you should have to get liability insurance if do one uses you gun in a crime.

If your car is stolen, and the thief wrecks it and kills someone. You, as the car owner, are not responsible for anything. Your typical liability insurance policy won't cover this either... Not quite sure where you were going with that...

I support gun ownership, but I have NO problem with allowing prosecution of people for negligently handling or securing their firearms to the point where it contributes to a crime. Certainly not the same culpability as the crime committed, and I'd like for there to be some kind of a comparison to the sentence for the criminal... i.e. I don't want the criminal getting 6 months for burglary with a gun and the gun owner getting 6 months for failing to secure the gun he used... AND I don't want a presumption of negligence if it is stolen. I'll trust a jury to decide what is and is not 'reasonable'... I'd even support the loss of the right to own guns either for a period or permanently in the cases of repeated offenses (straw purchasers) or particularly egregious acts (leaving a gun on a school park bench)... but again, due process.

(06-30-2016 12:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What?

Am I supposed to respond to a picture of a letter that I could have drawn up on word? Who received it. Whose legal guns were confiscated?

New York has a law outlawing certain guns and a law against them holding more than 5 rounds. You aren't allowed to have them.

That's not a registration that leads to a confiscation of ALL guns. It's a law breaker being held accountable for not being in compliance with the law.

Nobody said it lead to a confiscation of ALL guns... they said:

Quote:Registration has paved the road for confiscation everywhere it has been implemented.

Obviously you agree, so you move the goal posts.

I'd also point out that they wouldn't know how many rounds the gun held unless they registered it... so you're actually making the right's point for them.

What NY has done is required registration. Who would be against that? Nobody's taking their guns just because they register, right?

THEN NY passes a law saying you can't have a rifle or shotgun that holds more than 5 rounds... and you are required to either turn it in or leave the jurisdiction (and prove you have) OR face consequences. No law was broken except the capacity one, and that would not have been possible without the registration. Why 5? Why not 3? Why not 1?

So if NY passed a law saying no handgun could have a capacity of more than 6 or even 8 (I believe most semi-auto guns hold 9), you realize that this would make probably 80% of all handguns 'illegal' and subject to confiscation... and the only crime being capacity. No requirement of any other crime... no registration failures, no background failures, no murder, no suicide, no mishandling, no straw purchases, no thefts, no menacing... NOTHING.

I understand you may not care about the problem being created here... but if you don't understand the problem, then I don't know what to say to you about it.

You're doing the same thing as No Fly No Buy. A person TWICE was put on the FBI terrorist watch list... not the NFL, but the TERRORIST watch list... and was cleared... TWICE. If an FBI Terrorist watch list investigation doesn't catch someone like this, then 'more stringent gun background checks' sure as hell wouldn't have... and once investigated and cleared, I'd hope that the government would remove such a person from ANY such list.

So instead of talking about the common sense of fixing the fact that the FBI failed to catch this guy, when it seems that his public social media and friends were at least suspicious themselves... we're talking about the 'common sense' of something factually and completely unrelated to the events??

(06-30-2016 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What?

Am I supposed to respond to a picture of a letter that I could have drawn up on word? Who received it. Whose legal guns were confiscated?

New York has a law outlawing certain guns and a law against them holding more than 5 rounds. You aren't allowed to have them.

That's not a registration that leads to a confiscation of ALL guns. It's a law breaker being held accountable for not being in compliance with the law.

If you aren't aware of the NY SAFE Act then educate yourself.

How did NY State know who to send the letters to concerning specific firearms? Oh yeah...because they required registration.

They passed a law with an arbitrary magazine capacity limitation based not upon safety but upon a figure some bureaucrat came up with. What would stop them from passing a law that confiscates all firearms?

Again, who received the letter and whose legal guns were confiscated?

Waiting................

As with anything online the specific person who received the letter did not want all of their personal information posted for the world to see.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nyp...ifles.html

Quote:The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of shotguns and rifles capable of holding more than five rounds, demanding such guns be surrendered, altered or taken out of the city.

The demand came in the form of some 500 letters mailed out to owners of registered long guns that are in violation of a 2010 city ordinance. The first option for the letter's recipient is to, "Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter."

The notices, mailed Nov. 18, also give owners the options of demonstrating the gun has been moved out of NYPD jurisdiction or modified by a licensed gunsmith to comply with the law.

Although an NYPD spokeswoman told FoxNews.com the law has been on the books since 2010, critics say this year is the first time the notices were so widely dispersed. The notice was first reported on the website TheTruthAboutGuns.com.

Quote:Though these notices were not sent out as a direct result of the SAFE Act, New York State Assemblyman James Tedisco said the new law may embolden city police forces to send out similar letters.

Tedisco, who voted against the SAFE Act, said New York City had the five-round law in the books for about 20 years, but this is the first time he has heard complaints about the notices being sent out to gun owners.

"These letters appear to be another example of the Nanny State," Tedisco said. "Hypothetically, it can start with a letter, and then that can lead to someone knocking on your door saying, 'I want to see your gun.'"

Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

And you are the one mixing apples and oranges because unlike cars the ownership of firearms is a Constitutionally protected right.

(06-30-2016 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I can't stand Stephen Crowder.

That's a shame, his show is hilarious. Tune in tonight on Youtube, 7pm CST.

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

And you are the one mixing apples and oranges because unlike cars the ownership of firearms is a Constitutionally protected right.

so let me get this straight. you are arguing that cars are less prone to being confiscated because they are not a constitutionally protected right?

(06-30-2016 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I can't stand Stephen Crowder.

I agree with you. There's something so attention-whorish about him.

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation.

which would never have happened without the registration. In other words, the registration leads directly to someone being informed that they have broken the law. I think you're mixing metaphors at least as much.

They didn't use the gun to commit a crime. They didn't carry the gun in public. All they did was continue to own something that was legal before, and now isn't. ESSENTIALLY they've violated the 5th amendment.. No I don't think they REALLY have, but it's pretty darn close. The only evidence they have that the person has violated the law is their 'forced' compliance with the registration requirement. When you consider the experience NY has had with mandated registration of other weapons, I think the results of such tactics are obvious.

MY question is, how many 'criminals' registered their guns?

Quote:They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

I'm advocating no 'ex post facto' laws. If it was legal to own these guns when they registered them, the should be grandfathered in. Otherwise it is exactly what you claim it isn't. Registration being used as a means to confiscate guns with no evidence that that gun was used in ANY crime, other than the 'new' one that didn't exist before the registration requirement. Once again, we seem to be focusing on turning otherwise legal citizens, especially those who have volunteered to register their guns, into criminals, while doing nothing to take guns away from REAL criminals. Why are we (in effect, even if only in a limited way) PUNISHING people for complying with registration requirements?

Why 5? Why not 6 or 4? I wonder how many MORE or FEWER 'criminals' they would have created if they'd said 6 or 4?

My somewhat limited experience with long guns is that a shotgun holds 3 with a plug and 5 without, meaning that at 5, you get perhaps as many 'criminals' as you do with 4... and at 6, you get almost none. The government could obviously try and 'claim success' in reducing crime merely by using the data provided to them by citizens, unlike criminals, trying to remain law abiding.

(06-30-2016 01:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I can't stand Stephen Crowder.

I agree with you. There's something so attention-whorish about him.

see kronke?

(06-30-2016 01:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

And you are the one mixing apples and oranges because unlike cars the ownership of firearms is a Constitutionally protected right.

so let me get this straight. you are arguing that cars are less prone to being confiscated because they are not a constitutionally protected right?

Funny when combined with your signature...

WHy can't you argue with what he said rather than implying that he said something he clearly didn't.

I don't know him from Adam, but I can tell that when you are comparing a constitutionally protected right with something that isn't constitutionally protected, it's by definition an apples:oranges comparison.

The deflection about 'harder to confiscate' is transparent.... running away from the fight

It also seems self-evident that the exact opposite would be true.... that cars are MORE prone to being confiscated because they are not protected. It seems self-evident that things that are constitutionally protected shouldn't be prone to being confiscated at all, short of due process... while cars can be confiscated for all sorts of reasons.

(06-30-2016 01:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 12:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I can't stand Stephen Crowder.

I agree with you. There's something so attention-whorish about him.

Well, he is a comedian.

(06-30-2016 02:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

And you are the one mixing apples and oranges because unlike cars the ownership of firearms is a Constitutionally protected right.

so let me get this straight. you are arguing that cars are less prone to being confiscated because they are not a constitutionally protected right?

Funny when combined with your signature...

WHy can't you argue with what he said rather than implying that he said something he clearly didn't.

I don't know him from Adam, but I can tell that when you are comparing a constitutionally protected right with something that isn't constitutionally protected, it's by definition an apples:oranges comparison.

The deflection about 'harder to confiscate' is transparent.... running away from the fight

bold part ==> cons do that all the time.

other part ==> I agree it is apples to oranges in the context of "constitutionally protected within the US" but not when kap argues the unprotected right is less prone than the protected right. I disagree in the context of "rights in general." The western world does not consider gun ownership some universally-self evident protected right as they consider speech, representative govt, and religion.

(06-30-2016 02:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  bold part ==> cons do that all the time.

Actually it has nothing to do with political leaning. It has to do with intellectual honesty. If your point is that intellectually dishonest people do it, fine... but I don't know why you'd willingly engage in that and then admit it.

Quote:other part ==> I agree it is apples to oranges in the context of "constitutionally protected within the US" but not when kap argues the unprotected right is less prone than the protected right.

I don't see that this is an accurate representation of what he said. In fact, it seems directly contrary to what he said in the quoted post. Perhaps it was in another post?

See my edited post above (after you responded, sorry)

Quote: I disagree in the context of "rights in general." The western world does not consider gun ownership some universally-self evident protected right as they consider speech, representative govt, and religion.

'The Western World' is not our legal measure here... and certainly is not subject to our Constitution. Since the primary legal authority in this country is the Constitution, I don't see how expanding legal definitions to some non-existent 'Western' standard is remotely pertinent.

The Western World also has a very high VAT, but we don't. Most of them have proportional representation, but we don't. Depending on how you define it, most of them also don't have 'hate crimes' or 'affirmative action' either.

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

That is just patently false. You can't point to any widespread or even minor confiscation of weapons in America.

(06-30-2016 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

That is just patently false. You can't point to any widespread or even minor confiscation of weapons in America.

He already has, and you simply deeming it something other than it is because you don't understand the process doesn't change that fact.

First they get the registry (actually, first they get "universal background checks", which doesn't work without a registry), then lawmakers pick and choose what they want to make illegal, then they use the registry to enforce the confiscation.

(06-30-2016 02:46 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

That is just patently false. You can't point to any widespread or even minor confiscation of weapons in America.

He already has, and you simply deeming it something other than it is because you don't understand the process doesn't change that fact.

First they get the registry (actually, first they get "universal background checks", which doesn't work without a registry), then lawmakers pick and choose what they want to make illegal, then they use the registry to enforce the confiscation.

Yes...a fox 'news' story that 500 people were sent a letter. How many guns were turned in? Don't you think there'd be at least one news story on the internet about a person bitching that his guns were taken away...or a lawsuit filed for breach of his second amendment rights? Yet. Nothing.

Quote:Actually it has nothing to do with political leaning. It has to do with intellectual honesty. If your point is that intellectually dishonest people do it, fine... but I don't know why you'd willingly engage in that and then admit it.

where did I do that?

Quote:'The Western World' is not our legal measure here... and certainly is not subject to our Constitution. Since the primary legal authority in this country is the Constitution, I don't see how expanding legal definitions to some non-existent 'Western' standard is remotely pertinent.

conservatives will defend the sickest and most vile positions "because the constitution says so." I think we should be better than that. are rights not self evident? is there being self evident not a basis for why they were given to us in the first place? do western nations not have anything good to contribute to civilized society?

the fact is that the cons on here have a laughable approach on this subject.

(06-30-2016 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 02:46 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

That is just patently false. You can't point to any widespread or even minor confiscation of weapons in America.

He already has, and you simply deeming it something other than it is because you don't understand the process doesn't change that fact.

First they get the registry (actually, first they get "universal background checks", which doesn't work without a registry), then lawmakers pick and choose what they want to make illegal, then they use the registry to enforce the confiscation.

Yes...a fox 'news' story that 500 people were sent a letter. How many guns were turned in? Don't you think there'd be at least one news story on the internet about a person bitching that his guns were taken away...or a lawsuit filed for breach of his second amendment rights? Yet. Nothing.

shh...logic

(06-30-2016 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 02:46 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 02:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 01:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Fine...but you're mixing apples and oranges here. This is not a registration leading to a gun ban. It's violators of a law being made aware of their violation. They are found because guns, like cars, are required to be registered. You aren't advocating for no gun registration whatsoever are you???

Yes, I am against any gun registration because as the overwhelming evidence shows it leads to confiscation.

That is just patently false. You can't point to any widespread or even minor confiscation of weapons in America.

He already has, and you simply deeming it something other than it is because you don't understand the process doesn't change that fact.

First they get the registry (actually, first they get "universal background checks", which doesn't work without a registry), then lawmakers pick and choose what they want to make illegal, then they use the registry to enforce the confiscation.

Yes...a fox 'news' story that 500 people were sent a letter. How many guns were turned in? Don't you think there'd be at least one news story on the internet about a person bitching that his guns were taken away...or a lawsuit filed for breach of his second amendment rights? Yet. Nothing.

Straight off NRA-ILA's website. Perhaps only 500 people were sent the letters, because only 4% in liberal NYC actually followed the law and registered their "assault weapons". But wait, I thought an "overwhelming majority" of American gun owners supported these "common sense" measures?

The article also cites the registration and confiscation of guns in NYC in 1967 and 1991. (You wanted other examples)

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150626...ation-laws

Gun owners concerns over confiscation are well-founded. Many New Yorkers are likely familiar with the repeated confiscations carried out by New York City officials. In 1967, New York City enacted a law requiring the registration of rifles and shotguns. Subsequently, in 1991 the city banned many semi-automatic firearms. As New York City already possessed a registry of firearms and their owners, the city notified the owners that their newly illegal firearms must be removed from the five boroughs (not a realistic option for many people of lesser means), permanently disabled, or relinquished to the authorities. This shameful scenario played out again in 2013, when the NYPD sent out another round of letters to New York City gun owners, once again demanding the removal, destruction, or surrender of legally registered firearms made illegal by a subsequent law.