[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The first two are documented in this thread, why deny the truth?

(1) A background check will lead to a gun registry.

(2) A gun registry will lead to confiscation.

I guess I missed it. Can you "document" it again for me?

Excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I guess I missed it. Can you "document" it again for me?

excon

Search the thread.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Couldn't find it.. I guess it's the same place your "proof" that Obama ordered the IRS to go after his enemy's, is.

excon

[talaniman]

What's documented is fear of a registry by the feds while states, and cities already have a list. And indeed have laws that prohibit owning and carrying unregistered firearms. But lax laws in some places over sales has made beleaguered cities the victims of easy access to guns with a short, or long car ride, to those that shouldn't have them.

I have also documented many times that the suburban and rural dwellers face different challenges than do their urban counter parts. You still try to ignore that most want background checks even among gun owners and righties. Wonder why?

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Couldn't find it.. I guess it's the same place your "proof" that Obama ordered the IRS to go after his enemy's, is.

Excon

I mentioned the ACLU's concerns at least twice:

The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”
Ads by Google

“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”

“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”

Read more: ACLU: Reid gun bill could threaten privacy, civil liberties | The Daily Caller

And then there's this and the incident in California I mentioned twice. I'm sure there are many more such incidents, the cops are looking for an excuse to grab your guns. You trust the cops don't you, and we can certainly trust the government with our information, right?

[xx-man]

it isn't about that, the founders didn't anticipate the lawless society you have today and the funny part is you think this is acceptable

Do you really believe people were more honest back when there were few people (to be witnesses, to give chase... ) people were much more brutal... if the had machine guns back then the founding fathers would have wanted everyone to have one... With an estimated 300 million guns in america the death rate is 10,000 times less than the death rate per capita of automobiles, house hold accident cause more death than with guns... if we take away the accidental shootings ( mostly law enforcement) and the drug related shooting it is such a small percentage... don't get me wrong I don't think the senseless shootings of innocent school children should be minimized or even accepted... but if we just jump at feel good fixes to the problem , just pass laws that make us feel that we are doing something, then the as we see still happing , they don't work and the trgic instances continue. What do ALL the incidents have in common, a mentally ill person, for one reason or another decides to kill people. The reasons vary from revenge for being bullies to becoming a legend serial killer... but they were all mentally deranged and in many cases they could have had help... Noe the only way to stop gun violence 100 % is to remove ALL guns... from governments too, or the criminals will get them somehow, BUT... then killings will be with IED's ( improvised explosive devise), knives.swards, sticks and stones. A man bent on killing random people in England , where guns are EXTREMELY forbidden, dropped bricks from a skyscraper, killed three people, ran away and drop bricks another day killed four people... We live in a society that is self destructing and growing more violent... how do we protect ourselves.? The police for the most part show up after a crime, collect evidence , then arrest and seek a conviction... but that is after the crime has been committed and if that crime is murder, and it was your murder, well that's a bit too late isn't it... we must take our own safety into our own hands... and that we do anyway we can...

[xx-man]

Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."They were panned and carried out with over 600 confiscations with arrests or citations.

This deplorable New York City saga shows that those of us who had opposed the concept of registration back in 1967, and were labeled "paranoid," were not only not paranoid but also not impractical. For the New York City story quite vividly shows the nationwide plan apart to destroy the civil right and liberty to keep arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, notably the Ninth Amendment.

The plan is now obvious to all who would see: First Step, enact a nationwide firearms waiting period law. Second Step, when the waiting period dose noy reduce crime, and it won`t, then enact a nationwide registration law. Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.

[NeedKarma]

Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.

Explain how that would happen.

[talaniman]

Hire more police and instead of stopping and frisking minorities they go to the burbs and stop and frisk them.

[speechlesstx]

Hire more police and instead of stopping and frisking minorities they go to the burbs and stop and frisk them.

If they're registered they would go their homes, not stop and frisk. Why guess at who MIGHT have a gun when you know where they are?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

If they're registered they would go their homes, not stop and frisk. Why guess at who MIGHT have a gun when you know where they are?

Just who, exactly, would go to the homes of gun owners to take their guns? Can you lay that out for me?? What, exactly, would happen at the FIRST house? In your wildest right wing imagination, why would Obama do that??

Excon

[xx-man]

We can go round and round with all of this... since the beginning of time man has shown his cruelty to his fellow man... mankind is the only creature on earth that is capable of true evil... the senseless brutalization of others... evil can not, and will never be, stopped by running from it... history repeats itself... Mankind's mentality has not changed only the technology has...

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Just who, exactly, would go to the homes of gun owners to take their guns? Can you lay that out for me?? What, exactly, would happen at the FIRST house? In your wildest right wing imagination, why would Obama do that??

Excon

Try and keep up with who said what, ex. It was in response to this and nothing more:

xx-man: "Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms."

Needkarma: "Explain how that would happen."

Talaniman: "Hire more police and instead of stopping and frisking minorities they go to the burbs and stop and frisk them."

Me: "If they're registered they would go their homes, not stop and frisk. Why guess at who MIGHT have a gun when you know where they are?"

So theoretically speaking, if you knew where they were would you go there or just take a wild shot?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

But, you don't "theoretically" believe Obama will come for your guns.. You ACTUALLY DO believe it. I'm just asking YOU how that ACTUALLY might take place, and WHY you think it ACTUALLY would.

What? Aren't those legit questions? I think they go to the HEART of the argument.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

But, you don't "theoretically" believe Obama will come for your guns.. You ACTUALLY DO believe it. I'm just asking YOU how that ACTUALLY might take place, and WHY you think it ACTUALLY would.

What? Aren't those legit questions? I think they go to the HEART of the argument.

excon

We've been over this before many times, ex. It's hard to have a discussion when you provide both the questions and the answers. You don't need me for that, you just debate it amongst yourself. Should you ever get curious, ask me the questions without the answers.

[NeedKarma]

How will this weapons confiscation happen?

[talaniman]

I had better luck telling my 3 year old that there were no monsters in the closet or under his bed. He believed me, so why can't you believe if they come door to door for the guns me and Ex would be on YOUR side?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Let me put it in language you can understand.. You SAY Obama is going to come after your guns. You SAY if he does, a civil war will break out. Tal and I agree with you. In fact, I think it'll happen at the FIRST house.

Do you think that Obama DOESN'T know that? If he does, WHY do you think he'd DO that?

I don't believe we addressed this particular question.

excon

[speechlesstx]

OK, I don't believe Obama will take my guns and I do believe ex and Tal would defend the 2nd amendment - to a point.

But, if you trust the federal government to collect lots and lots of data on us as long as they swear they'll never use it against us, you're both nuts. You certainly would not have trusted Bush with such info, or say a Ted Cruz now would you?

[Wondergirl]

You certainly would not have trusted Bush with such info

Isn't he the one who started all this with his Patriot Act?