• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

The first steps in disarming the USA

As a gun owner in Canada, that sounds a lot like the policies that came through in Canada about 15 years ago. So far we still have our guns and while I don't support the registration part, I think licensing is a good idea. Everyone is on government record if they drive a car. Why not a gun?
 
Nova_C said:
As a gun owner in Canada, that sounds a lot like the policies that came through in Canada about 15 years ago. So far we still have our guns and while I don't support the registration part, I think licensing is a good idea. Everyone is on government record if they drive a car. Why not a gun?
Click to expand...
I guess it wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't have to worry about the govt using that information to come to my home and disarm me in a time that I might really need it to protect myself or my family.
 
Correction: the first step to civilian disarmament was the National Firearms Act on 1934 that ruled that short barrel shotguns weren't protected by the second amendment because they weren't used by the military (incorrect - they were used) and that full autos were not protected because, by default, they WERE used by the military. That horrible decision was made because the defendant wasn't present, and the court had to make a decision based on the words (some truth, some were lies) of the prosecuting attorney. It was never challenged, and the Supreme Court has (purposely or not) pretty much skirted the issue until recently. The, they found in favor of the 2A, but that ruling has been pretty much ignored. Gotta love big government...especially when it is so large that it violates the intent of the document used to justify it's existence in the first place!

One of these days, the Unintended Consequences of these past laws may just be felt by our lawmakers......
 
basically cutting out the 2nd amendment.

I hope america comes together to fight this like the herp community did to fight HR669. This really would be a direct violation of the constitution through and through! Now i'm P.O......
 
VinnyJ said:
I guess it wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't have to worry about the govt using that information to come to my home and disarm me in a time that I might really need it to protect myself or my family.
Click to expand...

You mean like Australia did claiming registration would NEVER lead to confiscation? I guess we can't bring up that gun laws were what made it so easy for Nazi's to round up the Jews and the similarities between those Nazi regs and the GCA68? I mean, the almost exact word-for-word translation is just a coincidence. To say otherwise is paranoia. Besides, the JPFO are the ones that generated it, and those guys don't know ANYTHING about oppression, after all.
 
well what if i put my flintlock over my mantel just so they think its decoration. as its one of my favorite firearms to use. lol. idk, i guess i would be willing to register my firearms, as long as my right to bear arms is never taken away. i see how it could mean they could get the info to come make you surrender them. but if it was in a time of need of protecting myself in a militant way. i would have no problem putting up my arms against government officials.
 
VinnyJ said:
I guess it wouldn't bother me so much if I didn't have to worry about the govt using that information to come to my home and disarm me in a time that I might really need it to protect myself or my family.
Click to expand...

THIS is the one of my brothers' biggest fears (I currently do not own a gun - but will change that as soon as I win the lottery - LOL).
 
If they decide to make people register guns I fear for the public officials who are sent out 2 years later to take them away...
 
In my State firearms do have to be registered and reregistered when sold to another party. I thought most states were already like that? I don't see the entire issue with that. Sure the government can look into your registration and see what kind of firearms you have, but unless you paid in cash they have other ways of finding out anyway. If your gun is lost or stolen around here they can return it to you when confiscated which is nice,lol
 
pwargcm said:
well what if i put my flintlock over my mantel just so they think its decoration. as its one of my favorite firearms to use. lol. idk, i guess i would be willing to register my firearms, as long as my right to bear arms is never taken away. i see how it could mean they could get the info to come make you surrender them. but if it was in a time of need of protecting myself in a militant way. i would have no problem putting up my arms against government officials.
Click to expand...

"Confiscation is always preceeded by registration" is a well known saying. Look at Australia - they were told to register with a promise of no later restrictions. "YOU LIE!" is what someone should have said. They were mostly taken away just a few short years later. This is the reason why registration must be fought tooth and nail. It isn't because of what "they" plan but what it will enable them to do more easily the next time around.

I'm an FFL. Mine are already "registered" in a too large meaning of the word (but not on a database outside of my control) since I do obey the law. My wife's do not have to be so listed (except for sales I make to her) nor does she have to record which ones she keeps or which ones she later gets rid of. I do. So, when I fight registration, I've already pretty much lost that fight personally, and I did it voluntarily. It is for all other Americans for which I am concerned.
 
danielle said:
In my State firearms do have to be registered and reregistered when sold to another party. I thought most states were already like that? I don't see the entire issue with that. Sure the government can look into your registration and see what kind of firearms you have, but unless you paid in cash they have other ways of finding out anyway. If your gun is lost or stolen around here they can return it to you when confiscated which is nice,lol
Click to expand...

Nah, the southeast and midwest states still "tend" to allow face-to-face transfers among residents without any registration requirements. As a private citizen, my dad (for example) can buy or sell a gun from/to any other LA resident as long as both can legally possess tthe firearm in the first place.
 
It's like that in Virginia 20 minutes from my house and firearms older than some year don't have to be registered either. My Dad collects guns mostly handed down from the great grand parents though they are for display only not hunting or target shooting, but his newer shotguns and handguns had to be registered. He's a die hard republican and hates the idea himself. IMO our country is different than others in that I feel part of the whole "their going to take my guns" is paranoia. I doubt our government is plotting for a nationwide registry so they can confiscate them seriously. Firearms are a huge part of our culture, history, and are a constitutional right their not stupid enough to violate.
 
Am I just a crazy person for believing that the law-abiding citizens who do register guns are the last people who would need to have their guns seized after a major catastrophe?

I'm sure KJ and I both remember perfectly well the atmosphere in September 2005, after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Come on, the people whose guns should be seized....are going to be the people who have them illegally by intent. And that is why there was a curfew in New Orleans for months.

Imposing more laws on the law-abiding.....will never control the criminal element that is the gun-toting danger to society.
 
I agree Eric if someone is prone to violence they just are and registering a gun doesn't change that one bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top