CDC: No Proof That Gun Laws Are Effective

Where would you draw the "too far" line?

Are you saying that we should trust the government the ability to locate and confiscate all guns, but not do anything until they begin confiscation? Why not trust the people with the ability to protect themselves until they individually prove they are not responsible enough? Why trust the government over the people? How has the federal government earned so much trust? If I ran my affairs like the feds run their affairs, I'd be in prison.

 

You mean like Afghanistan? Gosh, they had no chance against our massive impressive Army did they, or Russia's?

 

A point to that matter.

IRS Chief: "We Still Have Applications That Were Running When JFK Was President"

Government, always on the cutting edge. No one has a chance. LOL

 

Governments always given themselves a pass.

I'm not suggesting that there be mass confiscation. I mean, in the abstract it sounds possible, but in practice? Not going to happen. I hesitate to ground my comments in the US experience but I have to ask, do you really think that if the federal government in the US proposed mass confiscation that it would work? And what circumstances would justify such an action? I can't think of any. Besides any attempt at framing a law to do so would come up against the 2nd Amendment.

Registration does not imply mass confiscation.

 

There are some states that require registration. One particular state outlawed a certain firearm. Because they already had implemented the registration, they had no problem sending letters out to the owners advising them that they needed to surrender the outlawed firearm.
Does registration automatically mean confiscation? No. But it sure makes it easier when the time comes.
It won't come as you are picturing it. It won't be an national order all at once. It will be much more incremental.

This is the notice send to firearm owners...

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n80/orlandochuck/shotgun_zpsd8f64f12.png

 

The US military is less than 1 million people and getting smaller by the day. The US population is over 300 million.

Dont be so sure that there is zero chance. In the Civil War the North suffered many more casualties than the South....but won because of sheer numbers. I assume the same would happen.

Either way I hope it never comes back to that. Banning progressives from voting would be a better option.

 

Well, My guess is the gun nuts in this country have nothing like the will or the fortitude of the Afganistanies. And the United States hasn't armed the American civilians, unlike the amount of weapons we gave the Afgan people to fight the Russians. And if a war happens in the US in the future the Commander In Chief probably won't be nearly as incompetent as Bush.

 

Wrong, the North won because it was a industrial society with significant manufacturing capability fighting essentially an agrarian society.

 

Other countries have underestimated Americans much like you do. It is a mistake.

 

You misunderstand. The people that swear an oath to protect and abide the constitution don't go away when their term of service is over. To me, oaths are life long and go on beyond the term of service that one would contract out for. You are right that a single rifleman wouldn't be a match for a platoon supported by close air support, armored vehicles, and out in the middle of the jungle. The trouble with insurgency uprisings is that they hide within the general population and finding them is hard. The insurgents choose when and where to strike and don't wear uniforms.

Many servicemen also wouldn't follow an order to round up and shoot civilians. These soldiers that you say would squash an armed rebellion would have to live in those societies that they just smashed with their military boot and it would probably lend itself more sympathy with the populations position, especially if it was a popular one. As much as the civilian population wants to portray the military as jackbooted thugs who follow every order, it just isn't so. Their opinions and will vary just as much as the civilian population because.... wait for it.... they are drawn from the civilian population.

 

It hasn't been a mistake since Korea!

 

Did you miss the part of the oath where they swear to obey the orders of the President of the United States?

 

...........lawful orders............

 

I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The POTUS can't say murder those people. That would be against the UCMJ. The POTUS can't order the military to operate within the United States either. The civilian police are used for domestic operations, not the military.

 

Then what's the problem? Much the same happened in Australia when the feds convinced the states and territories to outlaw certain firearms. Although I disagreed and still disagree with the approach, it was out of legal process and law-abiding firearms owners had to - and did - comply. Those of us who thought it was a stupid over-reaction were simply in the minority. I do remember at the time that my state MP, who was a firearms collector, opposed the amended legislation in our state parliament and I supported him in that. But it wasn't enough. The political panic was set up by the Howard government and the states and territories meekly complied. But I stress, it was done lawfully, not by fiat.

And that's the point of registration, to know where the lawfully owned firearms are. There are a good many reasons to support registration and not too many to oppose it, that's only my view of course. I still have a problem with what happened and I still get annoyed when people on my side of politics praise Howard for what he did, which only shows that there are quite a few on my side of politics who don't have a clue about firearms and who are willing to congratulate a dyed-in-the-wool conservative/reactionary for doing something they thought was constructive. It wasn't it. It was cheap populism, of which Howard was a master. I'm good with seizure of firearms from an individual where there is due process. I am totally opposed to populist-based changes in the the law regarding firearms.

 

You ask.... What's the problem? The problem is that we don't want our government doing to us what your government did to you.

 

proving once again that it isn't the criminals you are concerned about, just the law-abiding people.
Why should any of the government agencies know who owns and who doesn't?

 

Where does it say that. Not in the quote above. And somehow the military still managed to torture prisoners despite it being unlawful.

 

Blind optimism. Presidents have and will in the future continue to break whatever laws they think interfere with their objectives. Just look at the whole sordid history of domestic surveillance.

 

All the more reason to avoid universal registration.

 

I don't blame you, it was disgusting. But for all of that registration is beneficial on a day to day basis. In our society we have regulated lawful ownership of firearms which makes it difficult, but not impossible, for criminals to obtain firearms which can't be traced. The other side of that is that our legislation also allows the law to crack down hard on criminals who use firearms and also on abuse of lawful firearms. Not saying yours doesn't, just making the point that for us registration is just one safeguard among many.

 

Who owns is the key. Where they keep them stored. All that sort of thing. It also allows those who shouldn't be able to have them to not get them, legally. Of course it isn't impossible to get a firearm illegally, but it's not easy.

 

I have my firearms for over 30 years. Never once had the hint of theft. Laws based on "what if's" and "maybe's" are not laws. I will not give up my 4th and 5th A Rights to keep the privilege intact. I'd rather have all of my Rights than have none at all.

 

Not everyone is a responsible firearms owner, unfortunately. And you're correct, it's not a right here, it's a privilege. If someone wants to own a firearm they need to apply and meet conditions. We see it a bit like being able to use a motor vehicle.

 

I take both very seriously. I'm careless with neither. But I will not surrender my other Rights for this one. They are a total package. As long as I'm not infringing on another's' Rights, what should it matter?