Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

Aside from guns past a certain date most gun manufacturers have a database, it would be a task but people have already put that information out there about their guns on the internet so the information is right there for the taking. You just don't want it to be done which is fine but it's not impossible welcome to 2019 technology.



A law repealing the second amendment? are you serious? also good thing that supreme court judges get lifetime appointments and presidents don't get to replace all of them during their term then.

I am also aware of the data base gun manufacturers have. But firearms down thru the years have been sold, exchanged, passed on after death and gave away as gifts. There could be literally tens of millions which fit that category.

I do not think appeal of the Second Amendment is going to happen. But when you have a retired sitting Justice who feels it should be, then it is not impossible. And I am mainly speaking of legislation which can be interpreted by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional. The Heller case for one, was a 5-4 decision which was a landmark decision outlining the Constitutional right to use firearms for self defense as a right apart from a militia. If that had gone the other way, the states would have much more power to control the citizen's use of firearms.

[roboscorcher]

They are now.

It is not hard or expensive to make your own ammo. Besides, many people have stocks of ammo stashed away. It wouldn't stop people from getting ammo thru the black market. It is not as easy as you are trying to make it sound.

It is not insane, it is being resistant to a Big Brother style of government overreach and control. This is not something for sure we should be doing with a constitutional right. What other constitutional right do we have to go that far to exercise?

- - - Updated - - -



And this type of approach is what drives many people to stock pile ammo and firearms when a sitting President is supportive with such nonsense. Obama helped increase the sales of firearms when he was in office.

And yeah, the ship already has sailed when it comes to the constitutional right to use firearms for self defense. Over two hundred years ago.

It's the second *amendment*, not commandment. It is not a divinely-ordained law. It can be amended if and when the country wants to. This is not 200 years ago. We live in an age where a terrorist livestreams his murderous rampage after reminding people to subscribe to PewDiePie. No amount of firearms will defend you from the modern military, who can nuke or carpetbomb any target on the planet within hours.

The only way to prevent tyranny is keep dictators out of office, which the US has also failed tremendously at.

[Draco-Onis]

I am also aware of the data base gun manufacturers have. But firearms down thru the years have been sold, exchanged, passed on after death and gave away as gifts. There could be literally tens of millions which fit that category.

And most of the people who own them brag about openly on the internet, the ones missed would be a small percentage.

I do not think appeal of the Second Amendment is going to happen. But when you have a retired sitting Justice who feels it should be, then it is not impossible. And I am mainly speaking of legislation which can be interpreted by the Supreme Court to be Constitutional. The Heller case for one, was a 5-4 decision which was a landmark decision outlining the Constitutional right to use firearms for self defense as a right apart from a militia. If that had gone the other way, the states would have much more power to control the citizen's use of firearms.

And that is a far cry from the president taking away your guns which is my point and the insanity of that argument.

[Maneo]

It's the second *amendment*, not commandment. It is not a divinely-ordained law. It can be amended if and when the country wants to. This is not 200 years ago. We live in an age where a terrorist livestreams his murderous rampage after reminding people to subscribe to PewDiePie. No amount of firearms will defend you from the modern military, who can nuke or carpetbomb any target on the planet within hours.

The only way to prevent tyranny is keep dictators out of office, which the US has also failed tremendously at.

Do you know the process to repeal a amendment? Not likely to happen anytime soon.

No amount of firearms will defend you from the modern military?... Afghanistan did pretty well yeah? Oh you think the U.S. military would carpet bomb or nuke its own civilians?

You seem to be in this delusional state, that it would be the might of the U.S. military against Joe w/his AR-15.

Also I have quite the arsenal at home (not everything I want), and absolutely none of them are registered except one hand gun (because that is my conceal carry) and I am breaking no laws.

The moment a national registry comes into play, all it takes is for the Dems to get a little to much power and confiscation would happen. W/out a registry that is going to be near impossible.

[Ghostpanther]

It's the second *amendment*, not commandment. It is not a divinely-ordained law. It can be amended if and when the country wants to. This is not 200 years ago. We live in an age where a terrorist livestreams his murderous rampage after reminding people to subscribe to PewDiePie. No amount of firearms will defend you from the modern military, who can nuke or carpetbomb any target on the planet within hours.

The only way to prevent tyranny is keep dictators out of office, which the US has also failed tremendously at.

I think I have expressed several times in this thread acknowledging there is a process to amend any part of our Constitution. Including the Second. But to appeal the Second is very unlikely to happen, but is possible. And no, it is not based on popular opinion or demand by the people. The states themselves also have a input. Even the lowest populated states have the same degree of power in this case as the largest populated ones do.

I do not have any fear of the military and it is certainly not the reason I have and carry firearms. So you are misled on that assumption with myself. If you had read some of my past comments on that subject, you would know.

- - - Updated - - -

And most of the people who own them brag about openly on the internet, the ones missed would be a small percentage.



And that is a far cry from the president taking away your guns which is my point and the insanity of that argument.

Most people who have firearms do not brag about it. lol! There are a estimate of 40+ million firearm owners. They do not really know how many do.

It is not insanity because some disagree with you on this subject. At this point, you have not made any point which has any impact on myself opposing a national registry for firearms. So we will just have to agree to disagree on it.

[Draco-Onis]

Most people who have firearms do not brag about it. lol! There are a estimate of 40+ million firearm owners. They do not really know how many do.

Seems you are far too old to understand how social media works, just posting with your gun is the equivalent of yelling about it with a blow horn. You can get a pretty close to the accurate number using quite a few methods and what they own. There is a quote I am fond of that I am not sure who first said it back in the day people would yell at you for reading their diaries nowadays they are angry if you don't

It is not insanity because some disagree with you on this subject. At this point, you have not made any point which has any impact on myself opposing a national registry for firearms. So we will just have to agree to disagree on it.

You agreed with me it is insanity to think the president is going to take away your guns, it is even more insane to think your guns is more precious than your car, your wife, your kids, your financial and medical information that the government already has. Your opinion is that it is perfectly sane to hold your gun more precious above all those things and my opinion is that those people are either stupid or nuts.

[Ghostpanther]

Seems you are far too old to understand how social media works, just posting with your gun is the equivalent of yelling about it with a blow horn. You can get a pretty close to the accurate number using quite a few methods and what they own. There is a quote I am fond of that I am not sure who first said it back in the day people would yell at you for reading their diaries nowadays they are angry if you don't



You agreed with me it is insanity to think the president is going to take away your guns, it is even more insane to think your guns is more precious than your car, your wife, your kids, your financial and medical information that the government already has. Your opinion is that it is perfectly sane to hold your gun more precious above all those things and my opinion is that those people are either stupid or nuts.

Lol. I am not that old. Just posting you have a firearm or why you like the one you have is not necessarily bragging. Are people bragging when they mention they have a Toyota Corona? I think you are overstating your point here.

How you got I think my guns are more precious than my wife and kids is really far out and radical thinking dude. I feel having the right to keep and carry a firearm helps to protect my wife and if my kids where still home, them also. And by the way, all 3 of my kids are supportive of my stance and all 3 have carry conceal licenses.

[Draco-Onis]

Lol. I am not that old. Just posting you have a firearm or why you like the one you have is not necessarily bragging. Are people bragging when they mention they have a Toyota Corona? I think you are overstating your point here.

Yes they are that is the entire point of social media, you aren't posting it for yourself

How you got I think my guns are more precious than my wife and kids is really far out and radical thinking dude. I feel having the right to keep and carry a firearm helps to protect my wife and if my kids where still home, them also. And by the way, all 3 of my kids are supportive of my stance and all 3 have carry conceal licenses.

I didn't specify you in particular I am just pointing to those who think so, the technology and the data to create profiles of every gun owner and what they own is out there. There is very little privacy these days your ISP, social media, credit card companies, cell phone companies are all selling your information to the highest bidder. We don't have strict privacy laws like some European countries, the cat is already out of the bag the only ones you wouldn't get are those who are off the grid.

[Ghostpanther]

Yes they are that is the entire point of social media, you aren't posting it for yourself



I didn't specify you in particular I am just pointing to those who think so, the technology and the data to create profiles of every gun owner and what they own is out there. There is very little privacy these days your ISP, social media, credit card companies, cell phone companies are all selling your information to the highest bidder. We don't have strict privacy laws like some European countries, the cat is already out of the bag the only ones you wouldn't get are those who are off the grid.

People also post for entertainment and in some cases, things can be learned. Personally I enjoy reading some of those made on here about the topic of gun control. And in some cases, I have learned some things new.

You did post this..."Your opinion is that it is perfectly sane to hold your gun more precious above all those things"... now tell me what post I made which led you to believe that?

[Draco-Onis]

People also post for entertainment and in some cases, things can be learned. Personally I enjoy reading some of those made on here about the topic of gun control. And in some cases, I have learned some things new.

My point is those are public spaces that data has no privacy protection.

You did post this..."Your opinion is that it is perfectly sane to hold your gun more precious above all those things"... now tell me what post I made which led you to believe that?

I got carried away you have my apologies it wasn't what I meant to say.

[Ghostpanther]

My point is those are public spaces that data has no privacy protection.



I got carried away you have my apologies it wasn't what I meant to say.

I agree about the privacy issue. Overreach from the government or failure to control excess of it , can cause that.

And I accept your apology.

[PhaelixWW]

Because it will keep track of the illegal gun trade that is being exported to other countries and domestically for example the majority of illegal guns seized in Mexico comes from the US.

No it won't. You can't "track" guns in the illegal trade pipeline. The best you can do is figure out who the last legitimate owner was. And you can do that with current firearms tracing. You don't need a registry for that. It adds nothing.

Are you saying that there are millions of people who own guns illegally without a license?

There's no such thing as a federal "firearms ownership license" in the US. There are some licenses that are distributed by states, most commonly a concealed carry permit, but not for all states, and nothing federal.

Fact: the president of the United States cannot unilaterally repeal a constitutional amendment even with veto proof control of the government. Even if he were in fact able to do so he would be struck down by the supreme court.

The government can, and has, pass(ed) legislation that is unconstitutional. By the time the SCotUS declares it unconstitutional, however, the damage could already be done. That is, after all, why extra precautions are taken to preserve Constitutional rights.

- - - Updated - - -

No amount of firearms will defend you from the modern military, who can nuke or carpetbomb any target on the planet within hours.

<shrug> No amount of modern military will be able to protect a tyrant who wholesale nukes and capetbombs great swathes of their own population in order to silence the dissidents.

[Draco-Onis]

No it won't

Keeping track of inventory won't help you figure out missing inventory /s

The government can, and has, pass(ed) legislation that is unconstitutional. By the time the SCotUS declares it unconstitutional, however, the damage could already be done. That is, after all, why extra precautions are taken to preserve Constitutional rights..

The government is not solely the president which means that legislation passed the house and was filibuster proof in the senate and got the president's signature thank you for helping me prove my point.

[roboscorcher]

Do you know the process to repeal a amendment? Not likely to happen anytime soon.

No amount of firearms will defend you from the modern military?... Afghanistan did pretty well yeah? Oh you think the U.S. military would carpet bomb or nuke its own civilians?

Unfortunately, dictators will bomb their own civilians. And you current president loves dictators. It used to be unthinkable, now it's just unlikely.

You seem to be in this delusional state, that it would be the might of the U.S. military against Joe w/his AR-15.

AFAIK, the intent behind 2A's *right* to bear arms was the premise that civilians could defend themselves from the government by forming their own militia. I'm glad you agree with me that this notion is absurd now.

[Svifnymr]

Because it will keep track of the illegal gun trade that is being exported to other countries and domestically for example the majority of illegal guns seized in Mexico comes from the US.

That was a big tagline a few years ago, not sure what the current numbers are. The stat was that there were 32,000 guns seized in Mexico, and of the guns traced, 80% came from USA.
The fact was, of the 32,000 most were military or smuggled, and only 8,000 were submitted to ATF for tracing. Of those 8,000, 80% were found to have been in commerce in the USA at some point. So 6400 guns were traced to have been in USA commerce at some point. It is entirely possible that any number of the remaining guns were also from the USA. Colt makes rifles for Mexican law enforcement and they are shipped from Connecticut to a central location in Mexico to then be sent out to various agencies. So if a couple crates go missing, it's a "US gun", even though it's not traced.

Are you saying that there are millions of people who own guns illegally without a license?

There is no federal license to purchase or own a firearm. Some states have such laws and register firearms to specific individuals, most do not. Many states that issue a concealed weapons license, do not tie the license to specific firearms.

Fact: the president of the United States cannot unilaterally repeal a constitutional amendment even with veto proof control of the government. Even if he were in fact able to do so he would be struck down by the supreme court. So yes emotional insanity not driven by logic or knowledge on the subject pushed by right wing interest groups to the stupid.

People didn't buy everything, revolvers didn't fly off the shelf next to pump shotguns. When Obama made overtures in the same way the Clintons did and told bible thumpers to cling to their guns, it was clear he wanted to pass some laws, it just wasn't a priority (like immigration reform) while he controlled things.

- - - Updated - - -

AFAIK, the intent behind 2A's *right* to bear arms was the premise that civilians could defend themselves from the government by forming their own militia. I'm glad you agree with me that this notion is absurd now.

There were actually several reasons for the 2nd amendment and it's not like the founders of the USA were a homogeneous group mind.

- - - Updated - - -

New law submission.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/s...un-purchasers/

Notify local law enforcement when a disqualified person attempts to buy a gun. It is a federal crime to lie on the form, so not sure the person could be charged for it by local, but certainly it would be worth investigating such a person to verify that they are not up to something.

[Draco-Onis]

People didn't buy everything, revolvers didn't fly off the shelf next to pump shotguns. When Obama made overtures in the same way the Clintons did and told bible thumpers to cling to their guns, it was clear he wanted to pass some laws, it just wasn't a priority (like immigration reform) while he controlled things.

And neither of those president had to super majority needed to do all the bullshit right wing interest groups claimed until presidents get mind control powers this was all bait for people too stupid to know how our system works.

[Svifnymr]

And neither of those president had to super majority needed to do all the bullshit right wing interest groups claimed until presidents get mind control powers this was all bait for people too stupid to know how our system works.

You are aware that Clinton passed the AWB, right? It's debatable how much it contributed to the flip of the congress since it flips often, but why do you think folks were afraid Obama would ban regular capacity magazines or whatever rifles Feinstein hates? Oh, right, just the evil NRA working for the gun makers, gotcha. It could never happen, other than all the times it happened.

(Btw, go research the ammo registration laws in effect between 68 and 86 and see how effective they weren't.)

[Draco-Onis]

You are aware that Clinton passed the AWB, right? It's debatable how much it contributed to the flip of the congress since it flips often, but why do you think folks were afraid Obama would ban regular capacity magazines or whatever rifles Feinstein hates? Oh, right, just the evil NRA working for the gun makers, gotcha. It could never happen, other than all the times it happened.

(Btw, go research the ammo registration laws in effect between 68 and 86 and see how effective they weren't.)

Because you need veto proof majority in both houses for major legislation such as Presidents taking way your guns to pass, you are welcome.

[Svifnymr]

Because you need veto proof majority in both houses for major legislation such as Presidents taking way your guns to pass, you are welcome.

it's not veto-proof when you're the pres, super majority is to end debate and avoid filibustering and stuff. But, again, did you miss that a law was passed that banned a bunch of stuff? Bleh, why am I even here, I'm going to the gun forums where folks are polite and informed, enough MMO for tonight.

[Ghostpanther]

AFAIK, the intent behind 2A's *right* to bear arms was the premise that civilians could defend themselves from the government by forming their own militia. I'm glad you agree with me that this notion is absurd now.

What matters now for the average citizen in the US, is the Supreme Court has already ruled the right to keep and bear arms as mentioned in the Constitution, is a right to use them for self defense apart from a militia. So good thing their opinion has a impact on how we get to use it here in the US. Not yours.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

New law submission.
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/s...un-purchasers/

Notify local law enforcement when a disqualified person attempts to buy a gun. It is a federal crime to lie on the form, so not sure the person could be charged for it by local, but certainly it would be worth investigating such a person to verify that they are not up to something.

Sounds like a common sense bill. I see no reason not to support it.

- - - Updated - - -

it's not veto-proof when you're the pres, super majority is to end debate and avoid filibustering and stuff. But, again, did you miss that a law was passed that banned a bunch of stuff? Bleh, why am I even here, I'm going to the gun forums where folks are polite and informed, enough MMO for tonight.

Lol! Do not blame you. But your input is very informative. Keep up the good fight.