It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by acuna
I'm not reading any threats in that letter. I read it as they are reminding you to use your gun responsibly and if you want to sell it or transfer ownership of for any reason, that there are certain procedures or regulations that need to be followed for that transfer to take place. I know that you already had to take a test on all that stuff but isn't it everyone's best interest to make sure that new gun owners are reminded one more time? You can read it as a threat but I honestly don't see it that way. What good would it do to threaten anyway?
Originally posted by DirtyD
reply to post by Cynicaleye
You would read that because your paranoid.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.
Originally posted by acuna
I'm really not seeing the big deal here. Ok you had to wait 10 days for your federal background check, that's kind of important to make sure that felons and crazy people don't get their hands on guns in the first place. The atty gen of California knew that you had purchased a gun 2 days after? So what? That just shows that for once a government system is actually working efficiently. Are you really worried about your name being on a list of registered gun owners? Why because you're afraid a list of gun owner is being made just so they can take everyone's guns? That make absolutely no sense whatsoever. (Hey let's let everyone buy something just so we can take it away?)
There's no way the government, state or federal, can nullify the 2nd amendment. How would they go about taking everyone's guns? House to house? Imagine the riots that would cause. Is the national guard and police or maybe even the military prepared to shoot to kill American citizens? Logically it would be a nightmare.
That letter is just a reminder of your responsibilities. Yeah I know guns don't kill people but, guns are inherently more dangerous than knives, or baseball bats. With a gun you can injure or kill someone that's 100s of feet away, bats and knives not so much.
It seems like people are ready to freak out at any type of effort to safeguard against gun violence. I own several guns and I wholeheartedly support universal background checks. If you're an average law abiding citizen you won't have any problems. And as far as my name being on a list of registered gun owners I really couldn't care less. People need to stop being so paranoid
Both sides of the gun debate need to chill the hell out. The rhetoric and freaking out is getting ridiculousedit on 16-4-2013 by acuna because: oops
Guns are designed and intended and used to kill(or at least seriously injure) people. None of those other things are. Most people don't buy cars to kill people. Guns are made to cause damage and that is the only reason why someone would purchase one.
No criminal cares about the laws they break right? so why have any laws?
let's see....food market for the nation, clean air, almost a balanced budget (Texas in the hole by approx. 20b), san Francisco giants world series winners, 49'ers in super bowl, deserts, ski slopes, ocean, no hurricanes, no tornados, no BP spills, no humidity, no blizzards, no "sandy" storms, no major floods........yeah....it's a bitch living here...please stay away
"These rights shall not be infringed" ANYTHING to do with gun control or registering guns is infringement!
You use a gun to commit a crime then you should pay for it not be slapped on the hand and let go to commit another crime. Law abiding people should be able to own and defend themselves with guns not be treated as criminals....
...Criminals don't register guns. Criminals don't follow "laws". Put the criminals away for a long time and watch the crime rate go down. Putting your name in a database is just a way for the government to take your guns or tax you on them.
Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by SSFlorida
Ok so NY state is trying a limited gun confiscation program. It looks like the subject are those who have been diagnosed with a psychological condition and are possibly dangerous. Aren't we trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who would be considered dangerous?
"These rights shall not be infringed" ANYTHING to do with gun control or registering guns is infringement!
I have to disagree with here. You forget the line "a well regulated militia". If there are no controls over what guns we can own then can we own any type of firearm? RPGs, bazookas? The framers of the Bill of Rights clearly didn't think we'd have fully automatic weapons, they had muskets back then.
You use a gun to commit a crime then you should pay for it not be slapped on the hand and let go to commit another crime. Law abiding people should be able to own and defend themselves with guns not be treated as criminals....
I agree with you here
...Criminals don't register guns. Criminals don't follow "laws". Put the criminals away for a long time and watch the crime rate go down. Putting your name in a database is just a way for the government to take your guns or tax you on them.
Yes criminal don't register their guns and do not follow laws. We already have stiff penalties for those who use unregistered guns and crime rates haven't really changed too much.
The US has a ton of gun violence and it's not all due to unregistered guns. Whatever the gov't can do to help police, FBI etc to solve crimes that involve guns they should do. It's not a road to confiscation. That's seems like a paranoid fallacy
Christians and even Ron Paul are considered "terrorists" so your logic of a "a limited gun confiscation program" does not hold water. If you read the news regular people who have gotten any drug to calm themselves or try to go to sleep are being targeted. Next it will be the Christians and Ron Paul followers.. ____________________