People who own guns are afraid of this happening by registering your guns.


Obama endorses Australian-style gun confiscation?


Registering your guns makes it so easy for the government to find you and take them away. You couldn't own guns in Germany, Russia and any totalitarian government. Why's that? If you could trust your government it would be great. But in present circumstances can you really trust Obama? I sure don't, he doesn't know or care about the constitution. Scratch that, he does know about it he just doesn't believe in following it.

I only don't believe in 30 round clips, 10 should be the max but leave the guns alone. We might need them in an emergency in our own country.

(06-12-2014 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Okay, this makes sense and I think would help some. Except that I don't understand your point about having the license where your criminal record is checked, after saying that background checks won't do much. I agree that assault weapon bans probably wouldn't do much, but I think background checks might. There is no panacea, but I think it would be worth tweaking. And if there isn't enough space at the jail, I'd rather have dangerous people in there instead of marijuana users.
These are some things that might keep a few guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, which is what I was going after. But many on the right, and the NRA, apparently shudder at the thought.

The problem with doing a background check at the point of sale is that it's a colossal pain in the ass. The license would say on the spot, I'm clean, without the hassle. And the background check only applies at the point of sale. Requiring you to have the license to have guns or ammo in your possession simplifies the policing problem away from the point of sale. The training aspect of the license should also reduce considerably the number of accidental gun deaths, although that's not a huge number to begin with. Gun shows would be set up kind of analogous to duty free shops at airports. If you buy anything, it would be delivered to a central collection point. When you leave, you go by there, show your license, and pick up your stuff.

I find it ironic that a lot of opposition to the license idea comes from people who hold a CCL, and thus have already subjected themselves voluntarily to many of the aspects of the license process. And it would have to be a huge moneymaker for people like NRA, because they'd be running the training courses.

As a permit carrier...I have no problem with what you describe. I only own a couple of handguns and bought them before I obtained my CCL...but..It is my understanding that I can buy without another permit(from my Sherrif)as a CCL holder in NC...pretty much like what you describe.

I don't really understand what the objection to a system like this could be. It would look like the best of both worlds. As a license holder I get to purchase hassle free...and the public is better protected knowing buyers are trained and vetted.

(06-12-2014 05:43 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  People who own guns are afraid of this happening by registering your guns.


Obama endorses Australian-style gun confiscation?


Registering your guns makes it so easy for the government to find you and take them away. You couldn't own guns in Germany, Russia and any totalitarian government. Why's that? If you could trust your government it would be great. But in present circumstances can you really trust Obama? I sure don't, he doesn't know or care about the constitution. Scratch that, he does know about it he just doesn't believe in following it.

I only don't believe in 30 round clips, 10 should be the max but leave the guns alone. We might need them in an emergency in our own country.

I have no problem with a 100 round clip or automatic weapons in the hands of a trained and vetted owner. They pose me no threat.

You can only kill one deer per year, right? Why do you need 30? If you can't kill an animal for food with 10 rounds maybe you shouldn't even own a gun. It's like the comedy where the hunter was cross-eyed and needed a machine gun for a rabbit. LOL

(06-12-2014 05:59 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  You can only kill one deer per year, right? Why do you need 30? If you can't kill an animal for food with 10 rounds maybe you shouldn't even own a gun. It's like the comedy where the hunter was cross-eyed and needed a machine gun for a rabbit. LOL

I agree.....I don't need 30 rounds. I just want them. Why is that a problem if I am a responsible gun owner? I think what Owl is talking about above addresses this issue very well in regard to having a license to purchase.

(06-12-2014 03:31 PM)bevotex Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:26 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Why?

I trust the government more than people on the internet...

You're a person on the internet. Do you trust your government more than you trust yourself?

If you look at it honestly, the U.S. government has killed way more people than lawful gun owners. It's not even close. I trust the people more than the government.

(06-12-2014 03:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes. You don't need a 30-round rifle unless your militia has regulated that well.

Why does any government need 5,000 nuclear ICBMs?

(06-12-2014 03:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yes. You don't need a 30-round rifle unless your militia has regulated that well.

So you're saying your support Bundy Ranch types having assault rifles then? "Well-regulated militia" means practiced, disciplined, trained, prepared etc, groups of arm civilians. "Regulated" as used in the constitution does not have the same meaning as the modern usage of the word "regulation."

(06-12-2014 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Okay, this makes sense and I think would help some. Except that I don't understand your point about having the license where your criminal record is checked, after saying that background checks won't do much. I agree that assault weapon bans probably wouldn't do much, but I think background checks might. There is no panacea, but I think it would be worth tweaking. And if there isn't enough space at the jail, I'd rather have dangerous people in there instead of marijuana users.
These are some things that might keep a few guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, which is what I was going after. But many on the right, and the NRA, apparently shudder at the thought.

The problem with doing a background check at the point of sale is that it's a colossal pain in the ass. The license would say on the spot, I'm clean, without the hassle. And the background check only applies at the point of sale. Requiring you to have the license to have guns or ammo in your possession simplifies the policing problem away from the point of sale. The training aspect of the license should also reduce considerably the number of accidental gun deaths, although that's not a huge number to begin with. Gun shows would be set up kind of analogous to duty free shops at airports. If you buy anything, it would be delivered to a central collection point. When you leave, you go by there, show your license, and pick up your stuff.

The other big difference is that the license involves only a criminal background check. The psychological testing that some have proposed is imposing a subjective standard onto a constitutionally protected right, which I think is wrong and would prove impossible to administer. Shrink A says you can't have a gun, shrink B says you can, do you get a gun? And in my approach the mental health profession has enough to do already with the suicide piece, where they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory.

I find it ironic that a lot of opposition to the license idea comes from people who hold a CCL, and thus have already subjected themselves voluntarily to those aspects of the license process that they complain about. Actually, it should be a non-event for any CCL holder. And it would have to be a huge moneymaker for people like NRA, because they'd be running the training courses.

While I like the idea of licensing in theory, it would quickly break down in practice. No legitimate CCL instructor is going to sign off on the training documents for someone he/she thinks will use the weapon for criminal purposes. So those who want a weapon for criminal purposes won't get licensed and will continue to obtain guns in illegal manners just like they do now. Nothing will change.

The use of an unregistered weapon in a crime already brings lots of additional penalties, yet the crimes still occur. Why? The dumb criminals never plan on getting caught. So it doesn't matter if you turn up the penalty, it just isn't a credible deterrent. We have to face up to the fact that our streets are awash in cheap guns that can be obtained illegally as easily as you can get drugs. It might make sense to seriously crank up the penalty for straw purchases, but I suspect even that would have limited success.

As far as mass shootings, we need to have serious discussions about the mental health policies in our society. It's really tough to make the argument of involuntarily committing someone who doesn't have a violent record, but many of these shooters have no record of criminal actions prior to their mass shooting sprees. It's going to take some tough choices and the realization that we may step on some peoples' individual rights in the name of protecting society. That's really hard to do in America.

The bottom line is that responsible gun owners are going to have to embrace some policies that might be a bit of a hassle for them in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

(06-12-2014 06:34 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:31 PM)bevotex Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:29 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:26 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Why?

I trust the government more than people on the internet...

You're a person on the internet. Do you trust your government more than you trust yourself?

If you look at it honestly, the U.S. government has killed way more people than lawful gun owners. It's not even close. I trust the people more than the government.

The US government tops damn near every list of bad schit that happens.

(06-12-2014 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 05:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Okay, this makes sense and I think would help some. Except that I don't understand your point about having the license where your criminal record is checked, after saying that background checks won't do much. I agree that assault weapon bans probably wouldn't do much, but I think background checks might. There is no panacea, but I think it would be worth tweaking. And if there isn't enough space at the jail, I'd rather have dangerous people in there instead of marijuana users.
These are some things that might keep a few guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, which is what I was going after. But many on the right, and the NRA, apparently shudder at the thought.

The problem with doing a background check at the point of sale is that it's a colossal pain in the ass. The license would say on the spot, I'm clean, without the hassle. And the background check only applies at the point of sale. Requiring you to have the license to have guns or ammo in your possession simplifies the policing problem away from the point of sale. The training aspect of the license should also reduce considerably the number of accidental gun deaths, although that's not a huge number to begin with. Gun shows would be set up kind of analogous to duty free shops at airports. If you buy anything, it would be delivered to a central collection point. When you leave, you go by there, show your license, and pick up your stuff.

The other big difference is that the license involves only a criminal background check. The psychological testing that some have proposed is imposing a subjective standard onto a constitutionally protected right, which I think is wrong and would prove impossible to administer. Shrink A says you can't have a gun, shrink B says you can, do you get a gun? And in my approach the mental health profession has enough to do already with the suicide piece, where they haven't exactly covered themselves in glory.

I find it ironic that a lot of opposition to the license idea comes from people who hold a CCL, and thus have already subjected themselves voluntarily to those aspects of the license process that they complain about. Actually, it should be a non-event for any CCL holder. And it would have to be a huge moneymaker for people like NRA, because they'd be running the training courses.

While I like the idea of licensing in theory, it would quickly break down in practice. No legitimate CCL instructor is going to sign off on the training documents for someone he/she thinks will use the weapon for criminal purposes. So those who want a weapon for criminal purposes won't get licensed and will continue to obtain guns in illegal manners just like they do now. Nothing will change.

The use of an unregistered weapon in a crime already brings lots of additional penalties, yet the crimes still occur. Why? The dumb criminals never plan on getting caught. So it doesn't matter if you turn up the penalty, it just isn't a credible deterrent. We have to face up to the fact that our streets are awash in cheap guns that can be obtained illegally as easily as you can get drugs. It might make sense to seriously crank up the penalty for straw purchases, but I suspect even that would have limited success.

As far as mass shootings, we need to have serious discussions about the mental health policies in our society. It's really tough to make the argument of involuntarily committing someone who doesn't have a violent record, but many of these shooters have no record of criminal actions prior to their mass shooting sprees. It's going to take some tough choices and the realization that we may step on some peoples' individual rights in the name of protecting society. That's really hard to do in America.

The bottom line is that responsible gun owners are going to have to embrace some policies that might be a bit of a hassle for them in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

You are NEVER going to stop a criminal from buying something illegal. No laws you enact will do that. We can though eliminate the red tape for those that are responsible gun owners and thus free up resources to combat those illegal purchases. It is similar to the drug war debate. Waste your time busing pot smokers...while the heroin, meth and crack dealers sell their poison. Freeing up resources makes more sense IMO.

(06-12-2014 03:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question for honest answer: what exactly is a "well regulated militia"?

A group of citizens armed enough and organized enough to overthrow a repressive government.

(06-13-2014 03:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question for honest answer: what exactly is a "well regulated militia"?

A group of citizens armed enough and organized enough to overthrow a repressive government.

There is no way a modern militia could overthrow our military. They would have to resort to guerrilla tactics. Fanatism more than armament would be required.

(06-13-2014 05:30 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 03:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question for honest answer: what exactly is a "well regulated militia"?

A group of citizens armed enough and organized enough to overthrow a repressive government.

There is no way a modern militia could overthrow our military. They would have to resort to guerrilla tactics. Fanatism more than armament would be required.

Doesn't have to. That's not the point. But it increases the degree of difficulty in imposing tyrannical policies. And that is the point.

A rag tag militia couldn't overthrow a trained military in colonial days. The continental army didn't defeat the Brits militarily. But they made it too big a pain in the ass for the Brits to want to fool with.

A rag tag al-Qaeda couldn't overthrow the modern US military in Iraq and Afghanistan either. But they made it hard enough that we quit and they won.

(06-13-2014 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 05:30 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 03:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question for honest answer: what exactly is a "well regulated militia"?

A group of citizens armed enough and organized enough to overthrow a repressive government.

There is no way a modern militia could overthrow our military. They would have to resort to guerrilla tactics. Fanatism more than armament would be required.

Doesn't have to. That's not the point. But it increases the degree of difficulty in imposing tyrannical policies. And that is the point.

A rag tag militia couldn't overthrow a trained military in colonial days. The continental army didn't defeat the Brits militarily. But they made it too big a pain in the ass for the Brits to want to fool with.

A rag tag al-Qaeda couldn't overthrow the modern US military in Iraq and Afghanistan either. But they made it hard enough that we quit and they won.

That is pretty much what I'm saying as well. Some folks see a pitched battle between a militia and our armed forces. That is absurd. Guerrilla tactics would be the only way to win.The reference to Iraq is valid as far as it goes, but it's not comparable to a situation here, at home. There is no place for us to go. We would have to stay and fight. This would result in civil war. This I can see happening.

(06-13-2014 07:33 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 05:30 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 03:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 03:33 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Question for honest answer: what exactly is a "well regulated militia"?

A group of citizens armed enough and organized enough to overthrow a repressive government.

There is no way a modern militia could overthrow our military. They would have to resort to guerrilla tactics. Fanatism more than armament would be required.

Doesn't have to. That's not the point. But it increases the degree of difficulty in imposing tyrannical policies. And that is the point.

A rag tag militia couldn't overthrow a trained military in colonial days. The continental army didn't defeat the Brits militarily. But they made it too big a pain in the ass for the Brits to want to fool with.

A rag tag al-Qaeda couldn't overthrow the modern US military in Iraq and Afghanistan either. But they made it hard enough that we quit and they won.

That is pretty much what I'm saying as well. Some folks see a pitched battle between a militia and our armed forces. That is absurd. Guerrilla tactics would be the only way to win.The reference to Iraq is valid as far as it goes, but it's not comparable to a situation here, at home. There is no place for us to go. We would have to stay and fight. This would result in civil war. This I can see happening.

The result I can see, and the one IMO that the fathers could see, is that the threat of such a civil war would temper any thoughts of tyranny. That may or may not happen, but would be tyrants have worried about it enough for centuries that disarming the populace has been one of their objectives.

Even in the US today, my chances of getting killed by a gun in the next year are 10 in 100,000, or once every 10,000 years. If I merely stay away from suicide and gangs, that goes down to something on the order of Western Europe, about 1 in 100,000 or once every 100,000 years. Either way, I think my chances of living in tyranny if citizens are disarmed would be substantially higher. Note that I'm not saying tyranny would be guaranteed immediately after guns were confiscated, so the arguments against that proposition do not apply. I'm saying the odds favor it sooner than my being killed under current conditions. I'm saying that if guns were confiscated, I'd expect tyranny way before 10,000 years. And if I were shot and killed today, those would still be the odds.

(06-13-2014 07:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 07:33 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 05:30 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 03:32 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  A group of citizens armed enough and organized enough to overthrow a repressive government.

There is no way a modern militia could overthrow our military. They would have to resort to guerrilla tactics. Fanatism more than armament would be required.

Doesn't have to. That's not the point. But it increases the degree of difficulty in imposing tyrannical policies. And that is the point.

A rag tag militia couldn't overthrow a trained military in colonial days. The continental army didn't defeat the Brits militarily. But they made it too big a pain in the ass for the Brits to want to fool with.

A rag tag al-Qaeda couldn't overthrow the modern US military in Iraq and Afghanistan either. But they made it hard enough that we quit and they won.

That is pretty much what I'm saying as well. Some folks see a pitched battle between a militia and our armed forces. That is absurd. Guerrilla tactics would be the only way to win.The reference to Iraq is valid as far as it goes, but it's not comparable to a situation here, at home. There is no place for us to go. We would have to stay and fight. This would result in civil war. This I can see happening.

The result I can see, and the one IMO that the fathers could see, is that the threat of such a civil war would temper any thoughts of tyranny. That may or may not happen, but would be tyrants have worried about it enough for centuries that disarming the populace has been one of their objectives.

Even in the US today, my chances of getting killed by a gun in the next year are 10 in 100,000, or once every 10,000 years. If I merely stay away from suicide and gangs, that goes down to something on the order of Western Europe, about 1 in 100,000 or once every 100,000 years. Either way, I think my chances of living in tyranny if citizens are disarmed would be substantially higher. Note that I'm not saying tyranny would be guaranteed immediately after guns were confiscated, so the arguments against that proposition do not apply. I'm saying the odds favor it sooner than my being killed under current conditions. I'm saying that if guns were confiscated, I'd expect tyranny way before 10,000 years. And if I were shot and killed today, those would still be the odds.

OK, no problem with that. Here is whatr I see as a somewhat likely scenario. Our country is under attack from extremeists. As the threat of terrorism at home grows, the government tightens up scurity more and more. We're already seeing this Homeland Security, TSA, etc.etc. NSA snooping. All of this activity has the cumulative effect of eroding our freedom and giving more power to a centralized government. Over time, we freely give up or freedoms. No need for a civil war or guerrila action.Thjis is what I think is actually happening now. We are so concerned about government expansion in areas like social programs and business oversight, and so busy attacking our opposing political beliefs that we're all missing the boat.
Fighting pointless unwinanable wars overseas drains our blood, causes internal strife and allows the government to usurp our freedoms. But here is a problem most of us don't tak about. We speak about the "government" as though it is a living, breathing person.It is not I thionk we fail; to identify what part of the government we're ta;king about, and whether the government itself is already under the influence of outside interest groups.

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

(06-13-2014 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not with a bang, but a whimper.

Bingo