Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mass gun confiscations HAVE occurred in the US....Why Gun Registration is a complete NO GO

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:03 PM
Original message
Mass gun confiscations HAVE occurred in the US....Why Gun Registration is a complete NO GO
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 03:04 PM by virginia mountainman
SKS rifle owners in California, due to rule change, suddenly found themselves owning illegal firearms..Even though they where completely legal when purchased, and LAWFULLY REGISTERED...

This is absolute why registration is a NO-GO... Rules and definitions change, and suddenly your previously legal firearm is illegal, and the police know EXACTLY, who has what...YOU MUST COMPLY...

First letters are to the OWNERS...






And the letter sent to law enforcement...



Gun Owners are well aware of this, and incidents like the mass confiscations in New Orleans.

Registration is NOT a "common sense" measure, far from it. It is a list for "who has what" for the state government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HERVEPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tough Crap
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. This is why my guns are NOT registered...
LOL....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. so, you're NOT a law-abiding gun owner? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Actually I am in full complance with the law...
Their is almost no gun registration in Virginia...The only thing that is registered is machine guns, silencers, and the like.

Also have a permit, to carry a concealed firearm, that is good is several US States..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
45. How refreshing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. ???? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. I believe gun registration is against the law in Florida ...
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 04:05 PM by spin
No system exist to register a firearm even if you wanted to.


The 2010 Florida Statutes(including Special Session A)

790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.

***snip***

(2) PROHIBITIONS.No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=firearms&URL=0700-0799/0790


Note: there are exceptions which are covered at the link.

edited for typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
29. Most states do not require registration. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #29
116. And that is a good thing. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
31. Based on court law, criminals don't have to register their firearms,
if not registering my firearms makes me into a criminal, then I don't have to register them, which means I'm not a criminal after all.

If there is a law requiring gun registration, I will not register my guns and I will remain law abiding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #31
47. Brilliant! Let anarchy rule. But I agree that
Convicted felons should be able to register, unless they are deemed to be violent. Writing a bad check or selling an ounce of pot should not be enough to marginalize whole segments of the population. Same goes for undocumented people. And blind folks too (not sure if they are excluded)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #47
78. No, guns should not be registered. The only use of such a system in the US is confiscation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
right2bfree Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #78
143. Whats wrong with getting guns out of the hands of those who are unfit? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #143
146. Nothing.
Burdening those who ARE fit to own them, on the other hand, particularly in light of of the track record of how registration has been used against those who ARE fit, and the words of the gun haters them selves on the subject...

Nope.

Sorry.

We aren't having any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
33. You are ignorant of the law, it seems... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
142. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mysuzuki2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. This is why NOBODY wants to talk to the gun control side
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
20. Eloquent!
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 03:39 PM by slackmaster
:rofl:

It's so uplifting seeing someone in favor of unconstitutional seizure of property from innocent people who went out of their way to comply with a bad law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. "Tough crap". Its interesting to see how progressive some really are when rights get trampled.
And you, sir, are no progressive.

I would hope that when you find yourself and your rights being trampled, those around you do not have the same attitude as you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
30. May I have a list of all your books and papers, please?
We're from the Government and we're here to... help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds like registration false under the "well-regulated militia" clause. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Well regulated = Properly functioning... Not control something by making it subject to rules or laws
Regulated:

1. to control something and bring it to the desired level, e.g. by adjusting the output of a machine or by imposing restrictions on the flow of something.

2. to adjust a piece of machinery or a control device on it so that the machinery works correctly

3. to cause something to occur at predictable intervals or in a regular way

4. to organize and control an activity or process by making it subject to rules or laws

In the time and context of the day and age that it was written, the word regulated did not mean what you think it means.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
75. How do you make it function properly without ...
...some degree of control by rules or laws?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #75
88. The militia regulates itself
I know I do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #75
91. Look at it like this...
A properly functioning(well regulated) Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So in order to have a working militia, the members of that militia need to own and be able to supply arms to that cause. The ability of the people to own firearms according to the right should not be encroached upon by the government. Sure with any right there are limits, but that is not defined in the right, just as it is not defined within any of the other rights.

Your reading too much into it. The 2nd is not about the rules or governing of the militia, but to place a limit on government. That's why all the Amendments are the rights of the people, not the powers of the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Here is the funny thing about that.
Let's say a criminal is caught in a state or city that requires registration and they have not registered their firearm that they are in illegal possession of. They cannot be convicted of failing to register their firearms because they would be protected by the 5th Amendment.

So a career criminal can posses a firearm and not be in violation of the registration requirements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. There is no federal registration.
(Outside NFA weapons)

No one is suggesting registration laws be bypassed. What this post was about is preventing further requirement of registration, when incidents like this can happen.

Something something ex post facto something.

Do you even know how the basic theory of law works?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Questions...
"Gun registrations are an absolute requirement if this country is to survive with any kind of sanity." To what end? Specifically, how will registering firearms benefit society?

"Those who want gun registration and gun control are very aware of incidents like mass shootings around the country, not to mention the terrible toll of individual shootings and of gun accidents." You speak of mass-shootings, individual shootings and gun accidents. How will firearms registration solve these issues or what impact do you see registration having on them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
46.  To what end? To make fools accountable
What other reason could there be? If your car is used in a hit and run, the cops know where to start. Same with a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #46
70. You realize they can already do that.
The firearm that was used in the mass shooting was traced within 3 hours of the shooting.

You realize that NY has been registering firearms for years. I have been doing some digging and cannot find even one crime that was solved where the registration data was a critical component of either the captue or conviction of a criminal. They still seem to go running to the ATF to trace the gun. Why?

I'm sorry but registration will not make anyone safer, in fact it will be yet another expensive and useless government entity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
KaoriMitsubishi Donating Member (74 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. Owners of unregistered guns should
get life in prison if those guns are used in the commission of a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. You do realize that most states do *NOT* require the registration of all firearms...
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 03:32 PM by Glassunion
Even California does not require(yet) that all firearms be registered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Do *NOT* require.
Typo there I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. tnx... edited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. Owners of cars that are stolen and used in a crime should also get life in prison
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 04:04 PM by DonP
If your car is stolen and used by a drunk driver in any accident, you should get the same sentence he or she does.

Based on your "logic", If you aren't going to be responsible for the safe storage of your vehicle it's your fault the crime occurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
34. Inventing new crimes...
How very "Progressive" of you.

Fucking seriously?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
8. How does gun registration help again?
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 03:17 PM by YllwFvr
I was under the impression it does nothing of good

The worst part of the example given is no reimbursement. I dont know how much an sks is, but I have rifles worth over a grand. I could sell them and get my money back, they are a good investment, but it would be a huge loss if they were just taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. IF someone registers their gun, AND they use it in a crime, AND they leave the gun behind
it can help.

It can also help identify straw purchasers, which is why I support registration on it's face, but I acknowledge the state has committed precedent that makes it hard to justify registration with most gun owners.

I would like to see registration laws with iron-clad grandfathering for firearms already possessed. But we won't see that, so registration is a non-starter with most people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Personally, I see many downsides that outweigh the benefit.
Gun confiscation is of the least of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. It does not help... At all.
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 03:51 PM by Glassunion
Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.- Janet Reno, US Attorney General

What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned. -Howard Metzanbaum, US Senator

I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.- Prof. Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.
And
When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities. Both quotes from Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States

I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper! George W. Bush, Former President of the Unites States

Funny how some of those who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution are so willing to wipe their ass with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #23
37. I was aware of some of those
but the last two pissed me right off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flyboy_451 Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
41. might check the source on the Bush quote...
I thought it rather unlikely that ANY president would say those words where they could be heard and spread by others, so I googled the quote. According to factcheck.org and other similar type sites, it is likely not a true quote. One of the worst ways to make points is to spread false quotes.

JW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #41
90. Good catch... Times change...
I had that initially as a document of amusing quotes on my laptop. As a rule I hop from site to site to hopefully validate quotes...

This quote had 3 reliable sources that I had read initially back in about 2006 and forgot about it, assuming it was a valid quote. However a few months ago, the site pulled and retracted the comments and I failed to check the sources again before posting it.

Thanks..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
73. How many billions spent in Canada ?
Ya see , uhhh , that is exactly the kind of , uhh ,innovative thinking that is ,uhhhh, driving our national economic recovery .

Everybiody grab a uhhh breast drill and auger , lets get to work on this hull !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. They can't point to a single arrest
Because of the registry can they? I'll have to do some digging
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. Haynes v. United States, 1968... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
26. Good
Now if only they would confiscate military weapons in all 50 states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Maybe we should advocate confiscating your computer to silence your speech too?
Oh, you LIKE that Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Im not typing on a military computer
It is the regular home use kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. But you *could*, if so inclined, use it to commit crimes.
Better if you send copies of all your Internet traffic to the Feds. Don't forget to give them admin-level access to your

hard drives while you're at it.


Prior restraint is prior restraint....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #38
51. And the number of military firearms in private hands is vanishingly small.
And they are already highly, crawl-up-you-ass-with-a-scope regulated.

So what's the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #38
67. Um, isn't the www based on a military network?
Why do you need to use a military-like network? What kind of horrible crimes are you planning? We'd better just take that away from you to make sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #67
102. Yep. The Internet is an outgrowth of ARPANET, started by the Defense Department.
Edited on Tue Apr-05-11 06:52 PM by friendly_iconoclast
More precisely, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, hence the name.



I wonder when our interlocutor is going to terminate their ISP account and destroy any Wi-Fi equipped devices they might have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #102
114. Oh noes1!1!!1!11!
The sky(net) is falling...!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #102
119. The Internet was designed to be resistant to nuclear attacks
In which entire cities would be wiped out. The system is designed to route around outages automatically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
86. What's a "military" computer?
Seventeen years ago, when I was manning a desk in the S-3 section of an infantry brigade HQ, the computer I was issued was an Olivetti laptop with a 286 CPU, running MS-DOS. It was nowhere near top of the line at the time, and I guarantee that what you're using now is exponentially faster and more powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. What "military weapons" are you talking about?
Be specific, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. All military weapons from assault rifles on up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Your obviously not military...
IF you where, you would know the difference between a civilian AR15 rifle, and a Military M4 rifle...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. You mean the 'civilian' AR15 rifles that have turned Mexico into a violent hellhole?
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 10:04 PM by Avant Guardian
Were they designed for civilian or military use? If they were designed for military use, ban em .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. AR15s are banned for civilians in Mexico, IIRC. How's that working out?
I also note that almost every single firearm ever invented has been put to military use at one point or another.

Seems to me you want to ban all guns but won't come out and admit it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. That's your second strawman argument in less than an hour.
And what, specifically, is "GOP style madness when it comes to firearms"? In your own words, if you would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. You dont know?
GOP style madness says 'Arm everybody, everywhere, all the time, guns in schools, colleges, on airplanes...yada yada yada, and everybody will be safer! Duh! Duh Duh!'

You know, GOP style madness...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #64
77. Cite to evidence, please?
Quotes, sources, anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #77
92. You'll see clear video of a live chupacabra before you see *that* evidence n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #92
99. **Snort**
They used to be so common, 'til they got hunted out...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burrfoot Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #99
145. By ass*oles with assault weapons, no less!!!1!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #64
84. Total fabrication and dishonesty in your post.
I challenge you to show even one example of anyone ever stating that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. I'm not sure you know what you are talking about.
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 10:53 PM by PavePusher
I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15 then run some more Google on 'AR-15'.

P.S. You just "banned" my lever-action .30-30 rifle. Sorry, from my cold, dead hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. That is where I got my information
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Then it seems you did not understand it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. I understand the part that says it was designed for military use
"Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world, including the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps. " says all I need to know

It was designed for military use. Ban em.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straw Man Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #63
65. You missed this part...
Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally quite different from full automatic versions for sale to law enforcement and military customers, though nearly identical in appearance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. I can't think of a gun
that wasn't designed for military use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #66
72. What part of 'from assault rifles on up' do you not understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #72
76. You need to look up the definition of "assault rifle".
Because you still are in fact-free territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #72
80. You don't have a clue what you're writing about
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #72
85. What part of vanishingly rare do you not undetstand?
What part of never used in crime do you not understand?

Cough up a cite to evidence so we can discuss something besides your feelings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #72
94. You do know that "assault rifles" are fully automatic don't you?
That would mean that anything less than full auto would be going down.

AR15s are semi auto. Non military.

The Colt Peacemaker was developed for the US govt. So you would make every revolver illegal to own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #63
69. This is where we reach our impasse then.
I cannot accept a situation in which the military is better-armed than the civilian populace. I want to work to get all conventional military arms into private hands, and to eliminate the really nasty(e.g. nuclear) stuff altogether. A populace should always, always have to power to overwhelm its country's military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. LOL
Then you cannot accept reality. The military has Jets, nukes, heavy artillery, smart bombs. You live in a violent RW fantasy world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #71
87. I didn't make myself entirely clear.
You're right. I don't accept the current situation in the United States, and I want to work to change it. This can be done by reducing military spending, and expanding public access to currently prohibited weapons. But isn't the current situation the right wing fantasy? An intrusive federal government backed by an unstoppable(by civilian means) military? That's not conducive to progressive values at all, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #87
97. Your fantasy of taking on the US military is absurd
Your problem, not mine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. It's clearly absurd.
Edited on Tue Apr-05-11 05:55 PM by NewMoonTherian
As you stated above, civilians are vastly outmatched. That is a bad situation that should not continue in the future. I also have no intention of, nor desire to take on the US military. It seems like you're misreading or mischaracterizing my position. Civilian combat capability should be equal to or greater than that of the military, so that the military and government cannot "take on" the populace. That is, so they cannot act against the will of the populace.

(Edited for clarity.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #98
103. You want to pit civilians against 'We the people?'
Edited on Tue Apr-05-11 07:38 PM by Avant Guardian
There is a name for what you preach: Libertarianism

B3. What is the libertarian position on gun control?
Consistently opposed. The revolutionaries who kicked out King George based their call for insurrection on the idea that Americans have not only the right but the duty to oppose a tyrannical government with force -- and that duty implies readiness to use force. This is why Thomas Jefferson said that "Firearms are the American yeoman's liberty teeth" and, in common with many of the Founding Fathers, asserted that an armed citizenry is the securest guarantee of freedom. Libertarians assert that "gun control" is a propagandist's lie for "people control", and even if it worked for reducing crime and violence (which it does not; when it's a crime to own guns, only criminals own them) it would be a fatally bad bargain.

C4. What about national defense?
This issue makes minarchists out of a lot of would-be anarchists. One view is that in a libertarian society everyone would be heavily armed, making invasion or usurpation by a domestic tyrant excessively risky. This is what the Founding Fathers clearly intended for the U.S. (the Constitution made no provision for a standing army, entrusting defense primarily to a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizenry). It works today in Switzerland (also furnishing one of the strongest anti-gun-control arguments). The key elements in libertarian-anarchist defense against an invader would be: a widespread ideology (libertarianism) that encourages resistance; ready availability of deadly weapons; and no structures of government that an invader can take over and use to rule indirectly. Think about the Afghans, the Viet Cong, the Minutemen -- would you want to invade a country full of dedicated, heavily armed libertarians? :-)
Minarchist libertarians are less radical, observe that U.S. territory could certainly be protected effectively with a military costing less than half of the bloated U.S. military budget.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. Um...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Conservatism, fundamentalism, and military dictatorship remain powerful opponents of liberalism. Today, liberals are organized politically on all major continents. They have played a decisive role in the growth of republics, the spread of civil rights and civil liberties, the establishment of the modern welfare state, the institution of religious toleration and religious freedom, and the development of globalization. Political scientist Alan Wolfe wrote, "liberalism is the answer for which modernity is the question".<8>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. So, liberals are pushing for a total armed society?
Nope, that would be libertarians and republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. Who here has that objective?
You can cut and paste a link can't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Havent you heard the news?
Read post #98

Read post #87

There is plenty of it RIGHT HERE. But you already know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. Now, to be fair, I never advocated for a total armed society.
Violent felons certainly shouldn't have access to guns. Nor should underage persons be allowed to purchase guns or ammunition by themselves. My position is simply that the civilian populace, as a whole, should be more combat capable than the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #111
121. "Now, to be fair, I never advocated for a total armed society."
"My position is simply that the civilian populace, as a whole, should be more combat capable than the military"

lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #110
112. You need to produce a quote
or learn how to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #112
120. oops
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 10:35 AM by Avant Guardian
oops
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #112
122. OK
"Civilian combat capability should be equal to or greater than that of the military, so that the military and government cannot "take on" the populace. That is, so they cannot act against the will of the populace."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #122
129. Oh, sorry. You can read.
You just can't count.

Adult population of the United States: aprx. 225,000,000.

Available for military service: 145,212,012

Fit for service: 120,022,184

Active personell: 1,477,896.

I don't think granny will have to get her gun.

No link. Sorry. Can't cut and paste from a phone. You can wiki it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #122
140. I've terribly miscommunicated my position, I'm afraid.
I was speaking, not in terms of which people have access to guns(though that is a consideration), but in terms of the types of arms available to the public. I wholly approve of certain people being prohibited from owning guns, if there is reasonable support for that prohibition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #106
134. It's hard to defend hyperbole isn't it? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. Wow. You've actually given me a good bit to think about. Thanks for the post!
I certainly share those views. But regarding "You want to pit civilians against 'We the people?'" I'm not sure I understand. "We the people" are the civilians I'm talking about. Anyone who isn't a member of the ruling class, the military or the police.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Better tell some South-Western Asian yahoos...
they don't seem to have got the memo....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #63
81. All firearms were originally designed for military use
As were many other things that people use every day, including the Internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #81
104. See: 'Asssault rifles on up'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #104
108. Define "assault rifle".
Edited on Tue Apr-05-11 07:53 PM by rrneck
It shouldn't be hard since it has probably been explained to you several times in this thread.

On edit: And while you're at it, explain how one may be acquired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #104
118. Military assault rifles are capable of automatic or burst fire, and are therefore strictly regulated
National Firearms Act of 1934. Look it up and educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #63
83. So was the bolt action rifle, the lever action repeater, the semi auto rifle
In the form of the Henry, the Mauser and the Springfield '03 and the M1 Garand. Both the originals and slight variations are all in common use today. The bolt action descendants are the commonly used sniper rifles item used by the marines and Army troops.

Or is there an expiration date on a military design? Are military designed rifles approved by you for civilian use after 50 years or more. 75 years? What's your arbitrary cut off point.

It gets tiring and dumb with people like you, that decide to ban this or that, because you want to. You have no basis in reality, know nothing about the subject but decide to ban something based on 5 minutes of poorly executed research and access to a keyboard.

If you really believe in gun control (and you obviously do) do it the right way, man up and repeal the 2nd amendment once and for all. Get your petitions started form your gun control groups and start becoming politically active for gun control. All you need are supermajorities in both houses, a white house signature and 3/4 of the state to ratify the repeal within the time limit. Since so many people agree with you, it should be no problem!

Granted that particular niche is kind of a dead end for the last decade and a half or more, but that's the right and courageous way to ban guns. Cut out all this half assed "ban this and that one" crap.

Oh, a strongly held point of view, based on Ignorance on an issue, is not a progressive value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #83
139. Don't forget the Brown Bess
And microwave ovens. After all, the magnetron valve was originally developed for radar, for the purpose of military applications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #63
96. The name "AR-15" got applied to different designs
Colt bought the manufacturing rights and trademark to the Armalite Rifle 15, which at the time was the selective fire design. After the U.S. Army adopted it under the designation M16, Colt stopped using the name "AR-15" for the selective fire version (calling it M16 instead), and started using that name for the semi-auto-only version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #63
115. Colt marketed the M16 to military
AR15 is marketed to the civilian market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
61. More here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-10

The AR-10 was the original version of the rifle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #43
82. You every study any history?


Every weapon ever designed or built was used by a "military" from the first time one bunch of cavemen figured out they could act in concert to add the women of the neighboring bunch of cavemen to their gene pool.

The hags too ugly to rape and the men they didn't kill became slaves.

Every technical advance has always been put to military use and, conversely, military necessity has spawned many a technical advance.

What turned Mexico into a violent hellhole is your requirement for recreational use of illegal drugs. Keep claiming 'a little toke' never hurt anyone. If you spent as much effort in demanding 'dead Mexican free dope' you might get somewhere. Consumer pressure worked for dolphins and tuna where government regulation failed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
101. All guns were originally designed for military use.
That bolt-action hunting rifle was a WWI & WWII battle rifle.

A lever action rifle was designed for the Civil War.

The Colt revolver was first sold to the Navy and to the Texas Rangers.

You would ban all guns, which is likely what you want anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
55. Again, specifics, please...? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. The police and military would have a hard time doing their jobs if that happened
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. The police and military arent civilians
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #40
53. Police are most definitely 'civilians'.
And you just proved you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #53
123. Now you are grasping at straws
And you know it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #123
131. I merely stated a fact.
The straw was brought by you, to create.... something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. I state fact
You obfuscate

civilian   /sɪˈvɪlyən/


noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. This is one of the rare instances where I must disagree with a dictionary.
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 01:36 PM by PavePusher
A civilian is one who is not under military discipline. That includes police and firefighters.

I think they (the dictionary publishers, and by the way, Mirriam-Webster agrees with you) are bowing to a common, but incorrect, usage.

Ask anyone in the military and they will near-universally state, with varying degrees of emphaticness, that police and firemen are civilians. If they want to be considered non-civilians, they can place themselves under military legal jurisdiction.... which is considerably less comfortable and free than being a civilian.

Edit: More info here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/119450/civili...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #135
137. Your beef isn't with me
Your beef is with reality
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #137
152. Feel free to place yourself subordinate to the UCMJ at any time.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 11:01 AM by PavePusher
We have offices everywhere....

Edit: It seems apparent that you still aren't understanding what you read (if you read it). Anyone not under military legal jurisdiction is a civilian. That's reality, no matter what the dictionary says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #40
56. Actually the police are
the military aren't. The military just bristle at the mention of police not being civilians. Police most definately are civilian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #40
68. Oh dear, you are not good at this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #68
125. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #40
79. Goalpost move, and police are in fact civilians
Edited on Tue Apr-05-11 08:46 AM by slackmaster
Your previous post didn't say that you would only disarm civilians.

ETA thinking about it a bit more, reply #40 doesn't say you wouldn't disarm the military either.

WTF are you thinking? Police state, or gun-free fantasy La-La-Land?

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #79
124. So, arming the cops = a 'police state?'
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #124
126. Perhaps the tought
Disarming "We the People" while arming the police and arming the military = police state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. Lets compromise then
Edited on Wed Apr-06-11 10:43 AM by Avant Guardian
Disarm the police, the military and the civilian population.

Problem solved.

:rofl:

*on edit: By your measure, every country on earth is a police state
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. Well what would you call it
when the government has power over the people?

Police States are not all Hugo Boss SS uniforms and jack booted thugs.

What would you call it if you woke up one morning to a knock on your bedroom door(not your front door) and there was an armed police officer standing in the hallway of your house asking you(in your robe) for identification so they could write you a summons and citation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #128
130. I call it 'not anarchy'
Governments govern, hence the name.

I do not share your paranoid fantasies about governments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #130
132. It is hardly a fantasy.
The scenario I gave is not fiction, but a reality. It does happen in another country. To me that is a police state. Where the government not only governs the affairs of the state, but controls the population's behavior. They monitor their population closely, and constantly give citations for even the smallest infraction.

This is not freedom, this is not 'not anarchy', it is government control of a population's behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #132
138. Fantasy, delusion, whichever...
The right wing mindset is driven by fear

The left wing mindset is driven by optimism

Case closed.

Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #138
150. Is observation of verifyable facts defined by fantasy or delusion in your book?
As for the mindsets, I feel that both are driven by fear. Just depends on the topic at hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
62. Seriously
do you guys have like a play book or something? What are you going to come up w/ next the "well regulated militia"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
right2bfree Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
144. Exactly. CA and NY have done a pretty good job on assault weapons. But...
we need a new AW ban as soon as BigO can get it signed into law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #144
147. Why do "we need a new AW ban"?
What weapons would/should be banned by this, and what purported problems would this solve?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #147
156.  Don't hpld your breath waiting for an answer.
She is just a driveby and run away poster. Never makes any sense, won't reply and refuses to debate.
A typical scared little anti.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #144
151. Congress won't pass it. It won't even get out of committees. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #144
154. I bet you cannot even correctly DEFINE an "AW"
Please prove me wrong...

If you cannot even define it, why do you want to ban it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. .
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 02:58 PM by Glassunion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
28. gun registration systems can't be used to solve crimes or in court due to the 5th which
means any government that sets up a registration system in the US is doing so only because they plan on passing gun bans and confiscations in the future. The next big NRA court case should be to eliminate all gun registration schemes at every level of government in the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avant Guardian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
44. So vehicle registration systems can't be used to solve crimes due to the 5th?
Funny how silly things look when put into proper perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. And here I'd thought certain other posters had used up all the straw.
Go right ahead and show us where what you claim has been said. We'll wait.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #44
93. link to a case in which vehicle registration was used to prosecute a criminal please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
89. That's why people who want outright gun bans go for total registration first
makes things easier.

If they were to say "no more guns ever starting now!" they'd be ignored.

Increments. That's the key.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #89
95. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #95
113. And for some reason, they think we won't notice.
Ah, well. As I like to say:

There used to be a Dream Team of gun control advocates. Now we've got the Washington Generals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #113
136. Of course they'll always retort with:
the slippery slope argument is bullshit. We'll totally stop with X and definitely not go on to Y or Z.

Then next year: enough with that slippery slope nonsense, we told you we'd stop with Y and definitely not go on to Z.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xela Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
117. Disturbing...
thanks for sharing.

Xela
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
right2bfree Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
141. Pretty simple, folks. If you like your guns, California is not the place to go!!!
Way to go California!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #141
148. That too will change.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 01:35 AM by beevul
We're working on it.

:hi:

On edit:

Bookmarked as yet another example of an anti-gun poster cheering for confiscation of otherwise lawfully owned firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewMoonTherian Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #141
149. That's always been my philosophy.
I'm thankful that I live in a state that consistently places among the bottom three on the Brady list. I'm hoping we'll soon allow carry on college campuses, which would give us a perfect zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #141
153. Your disdain for Constitutional Rights is noted.
Edited on Thu Apr-07-11 11:04 AM by PavePusher
And will be used as evidence against you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC