"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel
Forcing all firearm sales to go through a licensed dealer will bring full firearms registration to the United States. ATF is already recording as many sales as is possible from dealer "bound books" and 4473 forms - especially from out-of-business dealer records. ATF is known to be photographing and scanning dealer bound books - which then go into the National Tracing Center - as a registration record. All of this is being done under the guise of being able to 'trace' firearms.....
Do the morons not know that a ban on private sales will never work? In NC, where I grew up there is a law that you must get a $5 handgun purchase permit from your local sheriff, even for a private sale. The good ol' boys I grew up with ignored this law, and bought and sold handguns where and when they wanted. In order for a ban on private sales to be effective, it will require...tah dah! a national firearms database. That's where this idea is headed.
Yep - for regulating private sales a National register of each individual firearm owned (lawfully!) will become 'necessary'. The Canadians could not sustain that even after spending $2 BILLION
In Kiwiland there are only a few tens of thousand pistols, military style semi-autos and restricted weapons (machineguns, mortars, rocket launchers etc.) on the record ... and that can be up to 60% in error despite checking annually and relicencing every ten years ...Bad Luck!
We've all seen the wildly varying numbers put out by various entities estimating the number of Defensive Gun Uses here in the USA, somewhere between 750,000 and 2,500,000. So I understand that maybe the question I want to ask is not really answerable. But I find myself wondering what percentage of California owners of affected weapons complied with Roberti-Roos?
After all, our leftist friends idolize Rosa Parks refusal to move to the back of the bus. And civil disobediance was a staple of "The Struggle".
To paraphrase the late Mr. Fred Rogers: '"Can you say "massive non-compliance", Boys and Girls? I knew you could!"'
Being able to own a firearm is a right. I do not like the idea of asking to exercise a right, but I agree that there are people who are not mentally stable enough to be trusted. That said - why should the background check and transfer go through a dealer? why not let anyone call to complete a transfer, this way only the one being checked is affected and no serial nembers is needed.
In the USSR private sales of everything were illegal. Yet there were numerous people who became millionaires via private sales, and their fortunes weren't discovered until they dies of old age. If the KGB couldn't stop this, I wouldn't expect the clowns who came up with "fast and furious" to succeed.
Feinstein has her bill that she intends to introduce in January. But, there are a lot of Democrats who will want to get their names on legislation to show their constituents how anti-gun they are. So, we really don't know as yet, how draconian the laws will really get. It is time to get into the proper mind set to defend the the rights guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. If you hear gunfire at your neighbors house, lock and load and go to help out. If this generation doesn't take a stand, it's over. The world we leave our children and grandchildren will be worse than the former East German shithole. From this day forward, watch for incrementalism, sell-outs, and most importantly, pre-emptive attacks on people like those who participate on this board. It's coming, so get some steel in your spine to put lead in theirs.
Anon said: "why not let anyone call to complete a transfer, this way only the one being checked is affected and no serial nembers is needed."
Think this through a bit. First requirement is for a data base of ordinary people. There are several of them now, and the "background check" is currently about as reliable as a paper umbrella, even when used for the best intentions.
No "background check" or other such invasion of privacy can possibly predict, much less prevent people from using their tools for evil if they choose to do so.
Murder and mass destruction can be accomplished with an amazing assortment of everyday tools that nobody, so far, has even contemplated trying to restrict this way, let alone prohibit.
None of this is about preventing people from doing harm with their guns, because then the same would be said about all the rest of the things people use to kill each other.
The gun simply is the symbol of self ownership and self reliance. And THAT is what the government simply cannot ever tolerate.
I Love My Guns http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/2012/04/02/editor.html They represent self ownership, and true independence. They mark me as one who is responsible for myself and willing to risk everything to protect myself and others. It marks me as a free human being and not a slave. Slaves are not "allowed" to own and carry guns. Free people can't be stopped from doing so.
I love my guns, and the liberty for which they stand.
Anon said: "why not let anyone call to complete a transfer, this way only the one being checked is affected and no serial nembers is needed."
Unfortunately,the info collected on a 4473 and submitted for the instant check included they buyer's personal AND the identifying information for the gun being transferred including the serial number. They're supposed to delete this information after the instant check is complete, but they have asked many times to be able to keep it and even been caught doing so AFTER congress told them not to. So essentially, over time submitting all transfer info to NICS, both from FFL holders and private sellers, would result in defacto gun registration on every gun that passes through the system.
Califorians were told that their good faith registration of their "semi-automatic military-styled assault weapons" would never be used against them. The state lied. The info was later used to "remind" those who had registered rifles but not complied with Roberti-Roos' requirement that they be turned in, rendered inoperative, or sent out of the state.
You may think ATF has more integrity than their counterparts in California but I don't
This is not necessarily a bad development. It splits their efforts, so that in the end, nothing might be accomplished (which to me is still the most likely scenario anyway).
"...but I agree that there are people who are not mentally stable enough to be trusted."
So... you trust the government more? Madness. I'll take my chances with the lone nut-case, the same way I do with the occasional criminal. It's not the sort of thing to get your panties in a bind over. Stop thinking government is here to protect you. It's not.
As to this particular threat, I'm not sure how serious it is. I live in a state, Oregon, that has "closed the gun show loophole". This is no different than buying guns from a dealer. Besides the remedy of simply ignoring the law, the problem is not so much with government knowing who has the guns (it probably already knows that to pretty high accuracy). The real problem is the willingness of some gun owners to surrender in the face of government demands such as disarmament demands. That is, the base problem is not with government, but with our own will. The guns can only be taken from us IF WE AGREE TO IT.
Don't agree. Resolve to kill anyone who proposes to take them from you. If you don't, you implicitly agree to every other ugly and demeaning demand that the ruling class decides to impose on you; you agree to be a slave.
Of course it IS better, a little bit, if the registration mechanism is not enhanced over what we already have. But the sky is not falling here...
12 comments:
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
Forcing all firearm sales to go through a licensed dealer will bring full firearms registration to the United States. ATF is already recording as many sales as is possible from dealer "bound books" and 4473 forms - especially from out-of-business dealer records. ATF is known to be photographing and scanning dealer bound books - which then go into the National Tracing Center - as a registration record. All of this is being done under the guise of being able to 'trace' firearms.....
Why didn't I think of that? Talk about jacking up the prices! Then Holder will be running gun-walker schemes here at home. BRILLIANT!
Do the morons not know that a ban on private sales will never work? In NC, where I grew up there is a law that you must get a $5 handgun purchase permit from your local sheriff, even for a private sale. The good ol' boys I grew up with ignored this law, and bought and sold handguns where and when they wanted. In order for a ban on private sales to be effective, it will require...tah dah! a national firearms database. That's where this idea is headed.
Yep - for regulating private sales a National register of each individual firearm owned (lawfully!) will become 'necessary'.
The Canadians could not sustain that even after spending $2 BILLION
In Kiwiland there are only a few tens of thousand pistols, military style semi-autos and restricted weapons (machineguns, mortars, rocket launchers etc.) on the record ... and that can be up to 60% in error despite checking annually and relicencing every ten years ...Bad Luck!
300 million firearms - ROFL
III
We've all seen the wildly varying numbers put out by various entities estimating the number of Defensive Gun Uses here in the USA, somewhere between 750,000 and 2,500,000. So I understand that maybe the question I want to ask is not really answerable. But I find myself wondering what percentage of California owners of affected weapons complied with Roberti-Roos?
After all, our leftist friends idolize Rosa Parks refusal to move to the back of the bus. And civil disobediance was a staple of "The Struggle".
To paraphrase the late Mr. Fred Rogers: '"Can you say "massive non-compliance", Boys and Girls? I knew you could!"'
Being able to own a firearm is a right. I do not like the idea of asking to exercise a right, but I agree that there are people who are not mentally stable enough to be trusted. That said - why should the background check and transfer go through a dealer? why not let anyone call to complete a transfer, this way only the one being checked is affected and no serial nembers is needed.
This is going to end up just as Mike predicted...a civil war.
Let it come, I would rather there be trouble in my time than in my Grandchildrens.
Bring it while I can still fight.
In the USSR private sales of everything were illegal. Yet there were numerous people who became millionaires via private sales, and their fortunes weren't discovered until they dies of old age. If the KGB couldn't stop this, I wouldn't expect the clowns who came up with "fast and furious" to succeed.
Feinstein has her bill that she intends to introduce in January. But, there are a lot of Democrats who will want to get their names on legislation to show their constituents how anti-gun they are. So, we really don't know as yet, how draconian the laws will really get. It is time to get into the proper mind set to defend the the rights guaranteed in the 2nd amendment. If you hear gunfire at your neighbors house, lock and load and go to help out. If this generation doesn't take a stand, it's over. The world we leave our children and grandchildren will be worse than the former East German shithole. From this day forward, watch for incrementalism, sell-outs, and most importantly, pre-emptive attacks on people like those who participate on this board. It's coming, so get some steel in your spine to put lead in theirs.
Anon said: "why not let anyone call to complete a transfer, this way only the one being checked is affected and no serial nembers is needed."
Think this through a bit. First requirement is for a data base of ordinary people. There are several of them now, and the "background check" is currently about as reliable as a paper umbrella, even when used for the best intentions.
No "background check" or other such invasion of privacy can possibly predict, much less prevent people from using their tools for evil if they choose to do so.
Murder and mass destruction can be accomplished with an amazing assortment of everyday tools that nobody, so far, has even contemplated trying to restrict this way, let alone prohibit.
None of this is about preventing people from doing harm with their guns, because then the same would be said about all the rest of the things people use to kill each other.
The gun simply is the symbol of self ownership and self reliance. And THAT is what the government simply cannot ever tolerate.
I Love My Guns
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/2012/04/02/editor.html
They represent self ownership, and true independence. They mark me as one who is responsible for myself and willing to risk everything to protect myself and others. It marks me as a free human being and not a slave. Slaves are not "allowed" to own and carry guns. Free people can't be stopped from doing so.
I love my guns, and the liberty for which they stand.
Anon said: "why not let anyone call to complete a transfer, this way only the one being checked is affected and no serial nembers is needed."
Unfortunately,the info collected on a 4473 and submitted for the instant check included they buyer's personal AND the identifying information for the gun being transferred including the serial number. They're supposed to delete this information after the instant check is complete, but they have asked many times to be able to keep it and even been caught doing so AFTER congress told them not to. So essentially, over time submitting all transfer info to NICS, both from FFL holders and private sellers, would result in defacto gun registration on every gun that passes through the system.
Califorians were told that their good faith registration of their "semi-automatic military-styled assault weapons" would never be used against them. The state lied. The info was later used to "remind" those who had registered rifles but not complied with Roberti-Roos' requirement that they be turned in, rendered inoperative, or sent out of the state.
You may think ATF has more integrity than their counterparts in California but I don't
This is not necessarily a bad development. It splits their efforts, so that in the end, nothing might be accomplished (which to me is still the most likely scenario anyway).
"...but I agree that there are people who are not mentally stable enough to be trusted."
So... you trust the government more? Madness. I'll take my chances with the lone nut-case, the same way I do with the occasional criminal. It's not the sort of thing to get your panties in a bind over. Stop thinking government is here to protect you. It's not.
As to this particular threat, I'm not sure how serious it is. I live in a state, Oregon, that has "closed the gun show loophole". This is no different than buying guns from a dealer. Besides the remedy of simply ignoring the law, the problem is not so much with government knowing who has the guns (it probably already knows that to pretty high accuracy). The real problem is the willingness of some gun owners to surrender in the face of government demands such as disarmament demands. That is, the base problem is not with government, but with our own will. The guns can only be taken from us IF WE AGREE TO IT.
Don't agree. Resolve to kill anyone who proposes to take them from you. If you don't, you implicitly agree to every other ugly and demeaning demand that the ruling class decides to impose on you; you agree to be a slave.
Of course it IS better, a little bit, if the registration mechanism is not enhanced over what we already have. But the sky is not falling here...
Post a Comment