• 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

It's pretty obvious in any circle that gun control isn't about crime. Anyone with half a brain can easily find all sorts of evidence that violent crime is pretty unaffected in the long term by gun control.

It's about currying favor.

Anyway, KJUN, is that "Registration precedes confiscation" thing only for guns? Or for anything that's registered with the government?
 
Nova_C said:
It's pretty obvious in any circle that gun control isn't about crime. Anyone with half a brain can easily find all sorts of evidence that violent crime is pretty unaffected in the long term by gun control.

It's about currying favor.

Anyway, KJUN, is that "Registration precedes confiscation" thing only for guns? Or for anything that's registered with the government?
Click to expand...

It's held true so far in the herp community. Registration of the big 5 and venomous has resulted in the banning of these snakes in many counties and I believe some states...
 
Pruddock said:
It's held true so far in the herp community. Registration of the big 5 and venomous has resulted in the banning of these snakes in many counties and I believe some states...
Click to expand...

Does it take a long-standing example to render the statement void? Or do we call that an exception to the rule?
 
danielle said:
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.
Click to expand...
One would think. But seriously, I don't trust any of 'em.

D80
 
Nova_C said:
Anyway, KJUN, is that "Registration precedes confiscation" thing only for guns? Or for anything that's registered with the government?
Click to expand...

Payton said:
It's held true so far in the herp community. Registration of the big 5 and venomous has resulted in the banning of these snakes in many counties and I believe some states...
Click to expand...

You asked if it only applied to guns, I gave you another example.

Nova said:
Does it take a long-standing example to render the statement void? Or do we call that an exception to the rule?
Click to expand...

??? :poke:
 
I may be mistaken here...but if memory serves wasn't there another thread sometime ago about using guns to defend your property and your life and Nova came out and said that there was NO excuse to shoot anyone, not even if you are in your home in the middle of the night and someone breaks in.....

am I wrong about this?
 
starsevol said:
I may be mistaken here...but if memory serves wasn't there another thread sometime ago about using guns to defend your property and your life and Nova came out and said that there was NO excuse to shoot anyone, not even if you are in your home in the middle of the night and someone breaks in.....

am I wrong about this?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I don't believe the defense of ones property should allow lethal force to be used. If the person presents a clear danger to you and/or your family? All right then.

There's no need to get into all the different circumstances. It's a simple notion - your TV or car or stereo isn't worth killing a man.

Anyway, where I was going with registration is that cars have been registered for decades and I've not heard anyone claim that they're being taken away. Exception? Or evidence that the original claim is faulty?
 
Cornsnake124 said:
who said we would kill the man? just wound him so hes not a danger to your property or you anymore...
Click to expand...

Just wound him? So in other words he doesn't present a danger clear enough to disable him immediately, but you're still okay with shooting him. I'm pretty sure we'll never get anywhere with this line of discussion so let's get back to the topic of government confiscation.
 
I don't see the danger in registering firearms and going through strict "screening processes" in order to own them.
I think many of the malls/schools/movie theaters shootings could be avoided that way (crazy people). Besides, if government was to decide to take your firearm away from you and violate the II Amendment, heck, they would do it anyway, now or when you are registered.
 
vetusvates said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!
 
starsevol said:
I may be mistaken here...but if memory serves wasn't there another thread sometime ago about using guns to defend your property and your life and Nova came out and said that there was NO excuse to shoot anyone, not even if you are in your home in the middle of the night and someone breaks in.....

am I wrong about this?
Click to expand...

I remember that thread. http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79053

Here is some of the pertinent information pertaining to what you were asking about. And, no break ins to my house yet, but rest assured, someone who I do not know walks through my door without my permission, they will be leaving the premises in a body bag.

Nova_C said:
Guns are the only way to defend yourself from criminals and tyranny?

That's interesting.

Also, what the hell? Last page people were talking about how FREE America was. Now we're talking about how if you're not armed you're a slave. If you're only free in the US because you are armed and willing to kill, that's not freedom, that's oppression and rebellion and you're welcome to it.

I can tell you this: I am not oppressed in my free socialist nation of Canada, one of the few first world nations that was not born in civil war and earned it's independence through diplomacy.

Violence is not the only answer.
Click to expand...

mike17l said:
...
Oh yeah back to guns. It is not about violence, it is about the ability to defend oneself.

Can I have your street address? I would like to visit you during the middle of the night, some random evening during the next year.

Seriously, would you give it to me? Because I know for a fact that you can not defend yourself against what I have.

Likewise, with gun control, criminals will still get guns, that is unavoidable. But the "controlled" will be up a creek.

If you want I can give you my address, I do not mind if you visit me in the night, I am well defended and I have laws that would allow me to shoot you if you are on my property, so no worries on my end. Can you say the same?
Click to expand...

Nova_C said:
No I can't.

It's a philosophical difference. I don't believe shooting someone who's on your property should be okay because I don't believe killing people is okay. There needs to be a damn good reason and trespass is not a good reason.

Also, your method of argument is to make a veiled threat to harm me? I mean, I get what you're saying, but that's a pretty clumsy way to go about it. I also think it's patently ridiculous. There's a lot more harm that could be done to me by people who get my address than simply try to break into my house and shoot me...
Click to expand...

mike17l said:
You must have misunderstood, I never said I wanted to break in and shoot you, I only said I wanted to pay you a visit. You have no idea what I want to do. Maybe I want to harm you, maybe I want to steal your sankes, maybe I only want to hide from the cops, or maybe I want your money or perhaps I am blood thirsty.
(please understand, that I personally do not want to harm you or your family in any way, I am only making a point)

You see, if someone breaks into my home, I have no idea what they want there. I am not going to give them the chance to say "excuse me, do you have any Grey pupon?". Maybe they want to kill me, or rape me, or rob me, or laugh at me, or just say hi; but I assure you, if they come into my home, especially at night, unannounced, they will meet a dear friend of mine - Mr. Springfield, and it will not end well for them. I on the other hand, will be alive...
Click to expand...

mike17l said:
Should I stop and ask if they have a gun? or if they want to kill me? or if they are only there for a chat? How would I know?
Click to expand...
 
jpccusa said:
I don't see the danger in registering firearms and going through strict "screening processes" in order to own them.
I think many of the malls/schools/movie theaters shootings could be avoided that way (crazy people). Besides, if government was to decide to take your firearm away from you and violate the II Amendment, heck, they would do it anyway, now or when you are registered.
Click to expand...

Did you read Eric's post? here it is again.

vetusvates said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
jpccusa said:
... I think many of the malls/schools/movie theaters shootings could be avoided that way (crazy people). ...
Click to expand...
This is always one of the most illogical lines of argument coming from gun control advocates. (not directed at you jpccusa) I understand the premise behind the thought but it has no real world validity.

The assertion that having a law against something will stop a criminal from committing their illegal activity is absurd. Does anyone with any common sense actually believe if joe smith is going to walk onto a campus and shoot dozens of people that he will be in any way concerned about breaking the law to get the gun? Really? And it is even more absurd to think that making a gun illegal will make it impossible for a criminal to get. It will create a black market underground that will provide availability for only the criminal. Look at drugs as a prime example. :shrugs:
 
jpccusa said:
I don't see the danger in registering firearms and going through strict "screening processes" in order to own them.
I think many of the malls/schools/movie theaters shootings could be avoided that way (crazy people). Besides, if government was to decide to take your firearm away from you and violate the II Amendment, heck, they would do it anyway, now or when you are registered.
Click to expand...

So now we raise another issue based on the strict screening process. First of all the constitution GUARUNTEES the right to bear arms to all law abiding citizens of the US. If we go ahead and say, "OK, now you can own a gun AND you have to pass a psych exams." This is just an example and a question that's raised quite often. Who gets to determine what questions will be asked on the psych exam and what determines whether or not I'm psychologically stable enough to own a gun? If they ask the question, "If somebody you don't know comes into your house with the possible intention of threatening your family, would you kill them?" And I answer "Hell yes!" Does that mean I'm now a threatening citizen? You're giving politicians MORE power that they don't particularly deserve or are legally eligible for. Gotta love the Necessary and Proper clause... Should have been written less vague IMO. Vagueness is what is plaguing almost all of the current bills and proposals moving through the government that leaves way too much up for open interpretation.

The second amendment was NOT written this way and it shouldn't be changed.
 
tsst said:
This is always one of the most illogical lines of argument coming from gun control advocates. (not directed at you jpccusa) I understand the premise behind the thought but it has no real world validity.

The assertion that having a law against something will stop a criminal from committing their illegal activity is absurd. Does anyone with any common sense actually believe if joe smith is going to walk onto a campus and shoot dozens of people that he will be in any way concerned about breaking the law to get the gun? Really? And it is even more absurd to think that making a gun illegal will make it impossible for a criminal to get. It will create a black market underground that will provide availability for only the criminal. Look at drugs as a prime example. :shrugs:
Click to expand...

I lived in Brazil for 18 years... believe me, I KNOW! ;)
 
Does anyone with any common sense actually believe if joe smith is going to walk onto a campus and shoot dozens of people that he will be in any way concerned about breaking the law to get the gun?
Click to expand...
As my father used to say (when in the police force): "You can't legislate against the loonies".

Anyone that unhinged will always be able to source, hold and use firearms, whether legally or illegally. We have tight firearms control here in the UK with no automatic right to ownership, but we still have gun massacres (e.g. Hungerford & Dunblane).
 
bitsy said:
As my father used to say (when in the police force): "You can't legislate against the loonies".

Anyone that unhinged will always be able to source, hold and use firearms, whether legally or illegally. We have tight firearms control here in the UK with no automatic right to ownership, but we still have gun massacres (e.g. Hungerford & Dunblane).
Click to expand...
I do agree with the statement that you can't stop the looneys.
Though immediatly after Hungerford, all automatic weapons were outlawed and after Dunblane, all small arms were outlawed....
And they were over 10yrs ago and only two examples.....
America manages to do it on a regular basis, it seems.
As someone who doesn't believe in weapons outside of a war zone, I still find it unbelievable that a 200yr old ruling would be the basis of any arguments.
 
Pruddock said:
So now we raise another issue based on the strict screening process. First of all the constitution GUARUNTEES the right to bear arms to all law abiding citizens of the US.
Click to expand...

Second Amendment to the US Constitution said:
A 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.
Click to expand...

I see no 'law-abiding' caveat in there. Just pointing that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top