The Right To Bear Arms & The Spirit of Law (Registration is Counter to the Purpose of the Right)!?!

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Theres plenty of ways to sell guns to people and not actually know them. Gunshows for example. Also what if i say the gun was stolen or i sold it to some guy when i really didnt?

I also own a pre 4473 gun. Doesnt even have a serial number. Its a 12 gauge sears and robuck/jc higgins model 20 with a 28" barrel and mod choke, 5 shotppump, made my high standard.

Unrelated but i love when people call for gun control and have no clue what theyre talking about. A guy told me sniper rifles should be illegal, talking about the washington dc sniper, who used a bushmaster xm15 carbine. A very piss poor choice of a "sniper rifle". I pointed out to this guy that its only a sniper rifle because a sniper used it....infact its one of the worst choices there is for a sniper rifle. No excuse for stupidity. *any* rifle can be used for sniper attacks.

edit on 16-11-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)

But there you go. You have a pre 4473 rifle. It is pretty untraceable unless the initial buyer who sold it to you is still living. The problem with, and my objection of, 4473 's is that they are a record that the government has already been databasing. It is a form of backdoor registry.

You are quite on and to expand on your well put post, the whole point of the "gun show loophole" debate is to try to shut down all face to face transfers so that all transfers of firearms are on paper with, you guessed it 4473's.

Originally posted by happykat39


With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

This prerequisite to gun ownership is simply another intrusion on the right as it is writen.

The issue is
1. it is an inalienable right. (a right endowed by our Creator),
and not able to be alienated or separated from the being who possesses it.
2. This right (to keep (OWN) or bear (CARRY) arms) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
3. INFRINGEMENT means to slowly eat away at the core right from the edges.

Fringe is on the edges of a piece of cloth.
The fringe, if slowly taken away will gradually
make the cloth smaller and smaller.

This inalienable right is being infringed upon since the 1940's.
More so under democratic rule than republican rule.

it was relevant when everyone was using muskets.

now you are facing a gov't with tactical nukes bunker busters stealth bombers and drones

what's more relevant now is keeping mass shootings and murders down

like it or not that's the reality

reply to post by syrinx high priest


No matter how sophisticated the ships, cannons, planes bombs nuclear devices are,
unless you can field a force of armed men on the ground you do not win wars.
A fact we learned from the Viet Kong and a fact the Russians learned from the Afghanistan's.
If you can read about this information on the net. Do so.
You enjoy complete freedom of speech, an inalienable right.
Granted to you by the forceful exercise of one of the other inalienable rights.
Maybe you think that restrictions on gun right will curtail violent gun crimes
however SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE indicates otherwise.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39


With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

This prerequisite to gun ownership is simply another intrusion on the right as it is writen.

Then maybe we could just have everybody take gun safety classes in school just like taking driver ed. It wouldn't even have to use real guns as there would be no need to teach marksmanship, just how to safely handle, carry and store a weapon. The rationale behind doing that would be that even if you or your family will never be gun owners you never know when someone will come across one in a friends or relatives house.

Then when you buy a weapon at least you would have had some kind of training to keep you from being a complete idiot - oops, correct that; some people will be complete idiots no matter how they have been trained. But at least responsible people would know how to safely handle a weapon.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
it was relevant when everyone was using muskets.

now you are facing a gov't with tactical nukes bunker busters stealth bombers and drones

what's more relevant now is keeping mass shootings and murders down

like it or not that's the reality

There is a trite cliche' that goes "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

The point of it though is that you can legislate a gun out of the hands of an honest citizen but you cannot legislate the guns out of the hands of the criminals.

If memory serves me right Australia was the latest country to fool it's citizens into thinking they would be safer with guns being outlawed. The immediate result was a rise in gun related crimes since the criminals already don't give a fig about the law.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
it was relevant when everyone was using muskets.

now you are facing a gov't with tactical nukes bunker busters stealth bombers and drones

what's more relevant now is keeping mass shootings and murders down

like it or not that's the reality

So the first amendment was only revalent when people were using quills and now were are faceing governments with huge multimedia propaganda machines so we need to concentrate on illegal typwriters?

Originally posted by slugger9787
The issue is
1. it is an inalienable right. (a right endowed by our Creator),
and not able to be alienated or separated from the being who possesses it.
2. This right (to keep (OWN) or bear (CARRY) arms) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
3. INFRINGEMENT means to slowly eat away at the core right from the edges.

Fringe is on the edges of a piece of cloth.
The fringe, if slowly taken away will gradually
make the cloth smaller and smaller.

This inalienable right is being infringed upon since the 1940's.
More so under democratic rule than republican rule.

Well said !

another post mentioned drivers Ed. I thought instantly while reading the OP the quote that was engrained into us as youth drivers " driving is a privilege not a right" they have a majority of the US citizens believing that garbage statement and it bleeds over to our other rights they are slowly infringing upon.

Gun Registration may actually run counter to the 2nd if it were federal and someone ran it up to this Super Court. The fact is though, Gun Registration is hit and miss between states. Some have it and some do not. The only universal thing, and that is only on transactions through Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers is the FBI background check That is either instant yes/no or may delay up to 3 days for a delay or glitch.

In Missouri here there is absolutely no registration requirement or even the system to do that anymore. When they dropped the local Sheriff permitting handguns, they dropped the whole registration system with it in favor of the basic FBI check and left it at that.

So when people are feeling the crush of gun laws, be sure to check other states like Texas, Missouri to similar ones. If we don't suffer under the same regs you're finding a problem, odds are almost 100% it was never federal but your own state doing it to you. 95% of gun laws today are.

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39


With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

This prerequisite to gun ownership is simply another intrusion on the right as it is writen.

Then maybe we could just have everybody take gun safety classes in school just like taking driver ed. It wouldn't even have to use real guns as there would be no need to teach marksmanship, just how to safely handle, carry and store a weapon. The rationale behind doing that would be that even if you or your family will never be gun owners you never know when someone will come across one in a friends or relatives house.

Then when you buy a weapon at least you would have had some kind of training to keep you from being a complete idiot - oops, correct that; some people will be complete idiots no matter how they have been trained. But at least responsible people would know how to safely handle a weapon.

edit on 16-11-2012 by happykat39 because: clarified a point

The points are taken but have nothing to do with the amendment itself. Maybe you should open a thread on gun safety.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Theres plenty of ways to sell guns to people and not actually know them. Gunshows for example. Also what if i say the gun was stolen or i sold it to some guy when i really didnt?

I also own a pre 4473 gun. Doesnt even have a serial number. Its a 12 gauge sears and robuck/jc higgins model 20 with a 28" barrel and mod choke, 5 shotppump, made my high standard.

Unrelated but i love when people call for gun control and have no clue what theyre talking about. A guy told me sniper rifles should be illegal, talking about the washington dc sniper, who used a bushmaster xm15 carbine. A very piss poor choice of a "sniper rifle". I pointed out to this guy that its only a sniper rifle because a sniper used it....infact its one of the worst choices there is for a sniper rifle. No excuse for stupidity. *any* rifle can be used for sniper attacks.

edit on 16-11-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)

But there you go. You have a pre 4473 rifle. It is pretty untraceable unless the initial buyer who sold it to you is still living. The problem with, and my objection of, 4473 's is that they are a record that the government has already been databasing. It is a form of backdoor registry.

You are quite on and to expand on your well put post, the whole point of the "gun show loophole" debate is to try to shut down all face to face transfers so that all transfers of firearms are on paper with, you guessed it 4473's.

Yes, the gunshow loophole is just "private party sales". Feds have no authority on private party sales unless it crosses state lines and even thats hard to prove.

Oh yeah, heres a fun one. Fed law says you have to be 21 to buy pistols. Did ya know several states made laws saying 18? has to be private party though, federally licensed dealers have to follow federal law...

Form 4473 is honestly a failure at whatever its supposed to be. Totally useless.

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by phroziac
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Theres plenty of ways to sell guns to people and not actually know them. Gunshows for example. Also what if i say the gun was stolen or i sold it to some guy when i really didnt?

I also own a pre 4473 gun. Doesnt even have a serial number. Its a 12 gauge sears and robuck/jc higgins model 20 with a 28" barrel and mod choke, 5 shotppump, made my high standard.

Unrelated but i love when people call for gun control and have no clue what theyre talking about. A guy told me sniper rifles should be illegal, talking about the washington dc sniper, who used a bushmaster xm15 carbine. A very piss poor choice of a "sniper rifle". I pointed out to this guy that its only a sniper rifle because a sniper used it....infact its one of the worst choices there is for a sniper rifle. No excuse for stupidity. *any* rifle can be used for sniper attacks.

edit on 16-11-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)

But there you go. You have a pre 4473 rifle. It is pretty untraceable unless the initial buyer who sold it to you is still living. The problem with, and my objection of, 4473 's is that they are a record that the government has already been databasing. It is a form of backdoor registry.

You are quite on and to expand on your well put post, the whole point of the "gun show loophole" debate is to try to shut down all face to face transfers so that all transfers of firearms are on paper with, you guessed it 4473's.

Yes, the gunshow loophole is just "private party sales". Feds have no authority on private party sales unless it crosses state lines and even thats hard to prove.

Oh yeah, heres a fun one. Fed law says you have to be 21 to buy pistols. Did ya know several states made laws saying 18? has to be private party though, federally licensed dealers have to follow federal law...

Form 4473 is honestly a failure at whatever its supposed to be. Totally useless.

Just big brother at work. They just have to let everyone know that hay, we are around here watching, regulating and keeping an eye out. Its psyops.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39


With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

This prerequisite to gun ownership is simply another intrusion on the right as it is writen.

Then maybe we could just have everybody take gun safety classes in school just like taking driver ed. It wouldn't even have to use real guns as there would be no need to teach marksmanship, just how to safely handle, carry and store a weapon. The rationale behind doing that would be that even if you or your family will never be gun owners you never know when someone will come across one in a friends or relatives house.

Then when you buy a weapon at least you would have had some kind of training to keep you from being a complete idiot - oops, correct that; some people will be complete idiots no matter how they have been trained. But at least responsible people would know how to safely handle a weapon.

edit on 16-11-2012 by happykat39 because: clarified a point

The points are taken but have nothing to do with the amendment itself. Maybe you should open a thread on gun safety.

NOTED:
I did overplay the point somewhat but most of it was in response to others remarks too. However, I don't think a gun safety thread would go anywhere unless we run into a spate of idiots shooting their couches, with their 5 year old kid sitting on it, or blowing off their toes etc, etc, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum. Then there might be enough interest in gun safety to carry a thread past the first page.

reply to post by Logarock


We do indeed live in strange times. I'm no proponent of regulation or restriction when it comes to our "guaranteed" liberties. Some would call regulation the "price" of freedom, but then again, those folks don't under stand the FREE part either - regulation always comes with a price, paid by the people to the government. Hmmmmmm

ganjoa

FOPA prohibits federal registration.

Funny enough that hasnt stopped several defacto federal registrations from popping up. One of the more notorious examples is eTrace.

When it comes to trampling the people all laws are merely suggestions anyway.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
FOPA prohibits federal registration.

Funny enough that hasnt stopped several defacto federal registrations from popping up. One of the more notorious examples is eTrace.

When it comes to trampling the people all laws are merely suggestions anyway.

The most egregious violation of a promise not to use something for registering people was the Social Security system. Now just about everything we do on this planet requires us to give our SS number to prove who we are to some bloody agency or other.

I think guns have a purpose in our country and am glad our constitution addresses it. I don't agree that guns belong in the hands of mentally ill people. When the constitution was written, it was a lot easier to defend yourself and not face prosecution. Then we created mental institutions to put crazy people in. Then in 1981, Reagan turned them loose on the populace. Registration is the only hope to try and catch these mentally ill people that go into theatres and kill our families. They just busted another plan for killing at the new Twilight.

reply to post by MOMof3


Can you explain how registration is not just the only hope but how registration could help catch mentally ill people?

I knew y'all wouldn't like it

don't forget the founding fathers intended the constitution to change with the times, they were smart enough to realize that what worked for them would not necessarily work in 300 years

last time I checked, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy by the color of their 10 gallon hat, and there is no reasonable reason to have military style assualt rifles, so the less of them out there the better

I've heard it ruins the venison anyway

you are living in a doom porn fantasy world if you feel you need assualt rifles and 3,000 rounds to sleep at night because obama is coming for you