(12-23-2014, 04:38 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: BBH touched on the crux of this issue, at least for me.

The idea that this "right to bear arms" is some sort of God-given right, and how dare anybody say or do anything to contradict it.

Yes, the majority of gun-owners are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, and they should have the right to demonstrate that they can be trusted with a gun. This should be something that's earned, IMO.

You see, it's more important that they have this "right" to have guns, than the lives of them or their loved ones (or anyone else's lives for that matter).

Don't worry though, gun folk, things will never change.
When you tell a gun-lover "geez, I hope you or your loved one is never senselessly gunned down by a legally obtained gun", they really don't know what to say.


Your "right" is safe.

M.S. I lost a little brother to a legally owned firearm before he was 21 years old. Do I blame the firearm? Hell no ! It wasn't the guns fault he is dead ! So not all of us "gun lovers" are speechless.


Edited to add . . . somehow I fucked that quote up, but I was talking about MS's comment about asking a firearm lover about one of his loved ones dieing at the end of a firearm.

Where did the 5^th amendment come in to play here, F.U.?

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. You don't have to answer of course, but I hope you don't mind my asking. Was he the one holding the gun that ended his life?

(12-23-2014, 08:08 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Where did the 5^th amendment come in to play here, F.U.?

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. You don't have to answer of course, but I hope you don't mind my asking. Was he the one holding the gun that ended his life?

5^th gives us the right to freedom of speech. Without it we would not be able to have this conversation.


I don't mind talking about my brother HotD. Yes, he ended his own life using a firearm my father gave him as a gift.
I still own that firearm today.

Suicide prevention doesn't figure at all into my desire for smart gun control. That's an individual deciding to take his/her own life. It's sad, but it's a personal choice.

That's not the scenario MS posed whereby someone else shoots your family member to death.

P.s. The first amendment to the Constitution, as it was ratified and stands today, ensures freedom of speech. Going into previous drafts, comma placement of old drafts and such is a meaningless rabbit hole dive; pointless diversion, IMO.

(12-23-2014, 08:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Suicide prevention doesn't figure at all into my desire for smart gun control. That's an individual deciding to take his/her own life. It's sad, but it's a personal choice.

That's not the scenario MS posed whereby someone else shoots your family member to death.

P.s. The first amendment to the Constitution, as it was ratified and stands today, ensures freedom of speech. Going into previous drafts, comma placement of old drafts and such is a meaningless rabbit hole dive and pointless diversion, IMO.

Actually suicide effects family very similar to murder HotD. I say that because my father took one side of the fence after Bro shot himself. He sold me all his firearms within days of bro's death. He blamed the gun and not Bro. At that point I had a VERY large collection. I blamed Bro and not the gun. That is one reason I can still to this day own his still uncleaned and blood stained firearm.
But as usual I guess I am getting off track.
I will shut up now. hahahaha


Edited to add . . . I just realized I fucked up twice and typed 5 and not 1. I knew what I meant but well ... Sometimes my stupidity amazes myself. lol.

I don't know where your obsession with getting off track and shutting up is coming from, F.U.

People go with the flow here. That's not the same thing as throwing out "what about abortion?!" for the umpteenth time when children and firearms are being discussed. Even that's fine, it's just not deflection that I personally choose to entertain.

Anyway, I don't doubt the extreme mourning and grief in losing someone to a violent death -- whether it be self-inflicted or perpetrated by another. However, there are some very different effects and issues for surviving family members between the two types of killings.

And, certainly, choosing to take one's own life is a very different matter than unwillingly having one's life taken by another person.

ETA: I figured you were going back into pre-ratified Constitutional drafts when you said 5^th amendment for the second time.

And, I don't blame the guns either, F.U.

I blame the people holding the guns for shooting injuries and deaths.

I want controls that help to keep guns outta the hands of those who are identified as posing a high safety risk to others and themselves when armed.

HOTD, I have Never seen 1 advert, billboard, commercial, flier, poster, whatever that addresses parents with kids in the house and how to protect them, safe their weapons or keep them from the kids hands, not 1 ever.
That might possibly be because it is such a common sense thing that such ads should not be needed, but then again the tag on your hair dryer that says "Don't use this in the shower" shouldn't be needed either but its been on every hair drier sold in the US for 30 years.
For the most part I am with you, parents that leave their guns laying around for kids to get hold of Should be punished very harshly, I have No problem with that at all, same as shooting the kid yourself.
Extensive background checks, No issue at all, seriously, there should be a Tard database (for want of a better term but you get the idea) that would prevent nuthatches from buying guns. That database doesn't exist because it would interfere with the nuthatches rights. The answer is out there somewhere and its not a single silver bullet, it will be some combination of things. Those things should include better education, more visibility, more control on data and all that BEFORE it comes to making it harder for me to buy, own or sell my stuff.
The problem I had with little o and his "Expanded Background Checks" is all the other bullshit. Enforce the laws we have, if someone sells a gun to an asshole punish them for that, if someone leaves their guns around for kids to get hold of punish them for that and do something to educate the ignorant fuck. Make the education Required before a sale, but nod't make is so onerous on us law abiding citizens. Put the effort where it is needed, not a shotgun approach.
This shouldn't be hard

(12-23-2014, 10:21 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: HOTD, I have Never seen 1 advert, billboard, commercial, flier, poster, whatever that addresses parents with kids in the house and how to protect them, safe their weapons or keep them from the kids hands, not 1 ever.

Several public service ads and commercials have been posted upthread, Six.

Brochures/fliers with information on gun safety in the home are abundant and easily accessible. You may not have seen them because you haven't had small children in a long time or you weren't looking. I think they actually make the most sense in terms of effectiveness because they can be taken home and can be target marketed (about 35% of homes have guns in them and not all of them have children).

I agree that education is important. The brochures could be handed out to each person who purchases a gun -- that would make sense to me (at no cost to the gun retailer/distributor).

Anyway, the gun safety at home brochures are available at hospitals that provide children's health care, churches, family/social service organizations, on-line to be downloaded for any individuals or organizations to reproduce and distribute, etc...

Here are a couple of examples.
http://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/koh....VJokbP8kg
http://www.projectchildsafe.org/sites/de...TH12_1.pdf

(12-23-2014, 10:21 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: The problem I had with little o and his "Expanded Background Checks" is all the other bullshit. Enforce the laws we have, if someone sells a gun to an asshole punish them for that, if someone leaves their guns around for kids to get hold of punish them for that and do something to educate the ignorant fuck. Make the education Required before a sale, but nod't make is so onerous on us law abiding citizens. Put the effort where it is needed, not a shotgun approach. This shouldn't be hard.

I'm sincerely interested in what you feel was so onerous to you and other law-abiding gun owners, along with hearing what F.U. considers all those huge hoops that gun owners currently have to jump through.

There are a lot of smart gun safety messages being distributed via different channels, which is great.

Today, I saw the stupidest gun safety / gun control PSA message, however.

I can't imagine anyone other than the producer (Sleeper 13 in San Francisco) supporting the message. It's so idiotic that I first thought it was a hoax. It's not a hoax.



Jesus Christ. There are some really brain-dead extremists on both sides of the fence.

Yea, that was stupid as hell. Wrong on so many levels I am not even going in to it.

The onerous bits I am talking about are all the things that keep showing up as proposals, the extensive paperwork that BBH was talking about implementing, especially if its just paperwork for the express purpose of creating a system so complicated that it forces people away. The endless repetitive steps for people that are already cleared by virtue of a CCW permit, why should I have to go through all that BS every time I wish to buy, trade or sell a gun or ammo? I am already cleared and stable so says the state.
First time gun buyers, young gun buyers, those without a CCW: Yea, there should be some extra checking on them as long as its actual checking and the info is dealt with properly and in a timely manner.
Anyone breaking the gun laws: Straw Buyers, guys buying guns just to sell them, yea, they need to go to jail. I even think one should not be allowed to sell a gun to a stranger as a private seller, there should be some mechanism to trace where the gun went. That would prevent a guy irresponsibly selling a gun to someone with unknown credentials, or none at all.
Any convicted felon caught with a gun needs to go away for the rest of his life, felons that use a gun to rob or kill should be executed, fuck em, how the hell you going to rehab a guy like that?
Leave a gun where a kid can get it? Go to jail, it shouldn't be hard to figure out

(12-24-2014, 07:56 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Yea, that was stupid as hell. Wrong on so many levels I am not even going in to it.

Crazy wrong. Steal your parents' gun (= endanger your own safety to commit theft), take it to school (= commit another crime and endanger more people's safety), give it your teacher (= betray your family)... The idiocy blows me away, pun intended.

(12-24-2014, 07:56 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: The onerous bits I am talking about are all the things that keep showing up as proposals, the extensive paperwork that BBH was talking about implementing, especially if its just paperwork for the express purpose of creating a system so complicated that it forces people away. The endless repetitive steps for people that are already cleared by virtue of a CCW permit, why should I have to go through all that BS every time I wish to buy, trade or sell a gun or ammo? I am already cleared and stable so says the state.

Difference of opinion, I guess.

A CCW just means that you've taken the necessary firearms training (or achieved other qualifying status), given your prints, paid the small fee, and been cleared by the state to carry your firearms in some public places.

It doesn't make you an elite gun-owner or a member of law enforcement to hold a CCW. It doesn't mean that your firearms-related transactions should be exempt from the same transparency as anyone else's for those of us who support some rational national gun control measures and tracking (which, for a lot of us, would required the firearms training course for all gun-owners anyhow).

You have to undergo a background check for each dealer gun purchase even with a state-issued CCW -- no exceptions. So, I don't understand what you mean by onerous paperwork associated with the Universal Background Check bill. Is it potentially being subjected to a nationally-set wait period on transactions (of which there currently is none for Florida CCW holders) that is really your issue?

Having a CCW also doesn't mean that you can't have engaged in some activity or been diagnosed with something that would prohibit you from buying a new firearm since the time you were approved for the CCW (nor does it ensure that you're not a potential gun trafficker).

I don't see the process or proposed process as being onerous or hoop-jumping at all, CCW or not.

(12-24-2014, 07:56 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: First time gun buyers, young gun buyers, those without a CCW: Yea, there should be some extra checking on them as long as its actual checking and the info is dealt with properly and in a timely manner.
Anyone breaking the gun laws: Straw Buyers, guys buying guns just to sell them, yea, they need to go to jail. I even think one should not be allowed to sell a gun to a stranger as a private seller, there should be some mechanism to trace where the gun went. That would prevent a guy irresponsibly selling a gun to someone with unknown credentials, or none at all.
Any convicted felon caught with a gun needs to go away for the rest of his life, felons that use a gun to rob or kill should be executed, fuck em, how the hell you going to rehab a guy like that?
Leave a gun where a kid can get it? Go to jail, it shouldn't be hard to figure out

The same background checking should be done for previous gun owners, old or young purchasers, and those with a CCW, IMO -- same as it is now at the state level, including Florida. What is the extra checking you're talking about if not the transaction-specific dealer background check (which is already required)? Maybe I'm missing something.

Aside from that and mandatory jail time for neglect or endangerment (for me, charges should be filed in all cases, but the punishment would depend on the specific case), we're on the same page.

The hoops are different for different states HotD.

The ATF requires all buyers to fill out a forum 4473. That forum is really a waste of time IMO. I say that because a 4473 does not go to the feds. It simply gets filed in the dealers files and must remain there for 20 years at which time it can be disposed of. The only time it might get looked at is if a crime is committed and the firearm needs to get traced. Then the cops have to hit all the gun shops and ask if they sold that firearm. If they did then the forum gets looked up and the purchasers name verified.

All firearm transactions are also required to either be run through a FFL's books, or if it is a private sale the seller must see the buyers ID and permit to purchase. They are also required to take that info down and keep it in their records for 10 years . That goes for unlicensed sellers at gunshows also.

A call in to the N.I.C.S. is also required . However some states allow a permit to purchase or a permit to carry to act as the call in.

If a buyer purchases two or more handguns at one time a separate form is then required. That multiple purchase form is sent to the CLEO as well as the ATF.

Some states, such as Ill require a F.O.I.D. card. That firearms Owners ID card is a state issued card and says the state has also checked you out and found you able to own firearms.

Some states require a waiting period. Thank heavens Iowa is not one of them, but Ill has such a wait and it is 3 days. Wisconsin has a 24 hour wait. When we sell a firearm to a person from out of state we must abide by the laws of the purchasers home state [ our shop will not sell a gun to anyone from Cal, NY, or NJ its just too much work dealing with their laws]. We also are required to deliver that firearm [if it is a handgun] to a FFL holder in their state so that they can do the federally required paperwork.

Other states and some county's within states have their own laws/rules about magazine capacity limits, Bullet buttons, ammo type restrictions, etc.

Personally I feel the system is a joke and should be scrapped and we should start over. I believe the laws should be the same boarder to boarder, coast to coast. All this needless/useless paperwork that clutters up our shop needs to go. Yes do the 4473 and N.I.C.S. call in, but, just as the ATF does with the info from that N.I.C.S. call in, purge the system at the end of each day.

I do feel a permit to carry should be required . I think Iowa has this part right. The card is issued only after a basic firearm course is successfully completed and you pass a background check [which is the same thing as a N.I.C.S. call in]. That permit should be allowed to bypass the N.I.C.S. when purchasing since that call in was already done to get the permit.

Those are a few of my thoughts HotD. I am sure there is more but in my "foggy" state of mind it is all I can think of right now.

(12-25-2014, 05:58 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: The hoops are different for different states HotD.

Those are a few of my thoughts HotD. I am sure there is more but in my "foggy" state of mind it is all I can think of right now.

I hear ya -- was a bit foggy myself yesterday. Hope your Christmas celebrations were great, F.U.

Thanks very much to you and Six for the replies. I really wanted to understand what you saw as onerous hoops to get a clearer understanding of your perspectives.

This isn't meant to be personal, just "no bullshit" direct communication between mature friends. One of the primary factors that's pushed me more towards actively supporting additional gun control over the last 18 months -- as much as increased coverage and awareness of gun-related crimes, laws and politics --is the mindsets/rationales/arguments of most gun enthusiasts here at Mock, in government, and in crime-related discussions. I've listened and read closely, with an open-mind.

What a sizable portion of the gun-owning population (in my experience) will position as "onerous" or "jumping through hoops" in order to resist supporting rational new gun control laws equates to nothing more than petty or minor personal inconvenience. Many of those same enthusiasts claim to support the common sense changes in theory, but then object to making such changes on the basis of execution/process.

So, getting away from rhetoric or agendas, here are my thoughts on your responses regarding "hoops":

The form 4473 that you mentioned is a page of questions for the buyer -- easily filled out within minutes. It's less comprehensive than a department store credit app, an appliance extended warranty form, a job application, etc... The dealer/seller portion of the form is also short and efficient. It is in no way taxing or burdensome, though I understand why a lot of people wish it were more of a hoop-jumping exercise. If you support background checks, which you've confirmed that you do upthread, there's no reasonable objection to the form 4473. Not onerous, not a hoop.
REF: FORM 4473 https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download...4473-1.pdf

You mentioned that a call to NICS is required by the dealer or, in some case, the buyer. That is also a process step that takes only minutes in the vast majority of cases, based on the stats and feedback that I've examined. If you support background checks, which you've confirmed that you do upthread, there's no reasonable objection to calling in the application information so that a determination can be made as to whether the applicant is qualified for gun-ownership under existing laws. Not onerous, not a hoop.

The FOIS card that you mentioned applies only to gun-owning residents of Illinois. I actually wish something of that nature was required in all states and centrally tracked nationally. It's a state firemarms' license that is obtained after filling out an application and waiting 30 days for it to be checked and approved. If approved, it is valid for 10 years. It's of benefit to law enforcement in helping to enforce existing laws and, IMO, not onerous and not a large hoop for the gun-owner.
REF: FOIS Info http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm

In regards to the universal background check proposal that failed last year: When I read the 2013 bill pushing for universal background checks, I was surprised at how lax it was, honestly. It would simply have subjected private sells and transfers of firearms (except between family members, which it exempts) to the same background checking procedure as dealer sells and transactions. It's a no-brainer; that loophole should be closed for public safety and 90% of the population agrees, including the majority of gun owners. It also limited ammo clips to 10 rounds per cartridge, but the amended bill removed that ammo restriction altogether. It also expressly prohibits the creation of a national gun registry. Yes, it would have generated some additional work for dealers running the background checks for private sellers/buyers, for which a processing fee would be charged -- that's it. Perfectly reasonable, IMO.
REFS: Original bill: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152165893/Pu...ection-Act
Amended: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...Toomey.pdf

When I consider the arguments of gun enthusiasts here -- arguments against the post-Newtown legislation -- they are hollow and self-serving to me, no matter how hard I try to find reasonableness and open-mindedness in them.

I do agree with you completely, however, that a national system for gun control would be awesome. The laws in different states vary drastically and that means traffickers will go to softer states to procure and then those guns wind up in states with strict gun laws anyway. Also, I can see how state-to-state variances might be a pain when a CCW-holder has a legitimate reason to wanna carry in other states, but cannot do so without a separate CCW permit for each state; the states, however, don't want it any other way.

And, just like that second amendment right to bear arms, state-sovereignty is secured by explicit intent in the US Constitution. I think username and blueberry are right about needing to evaluate the intent and interpretation of some portions of the Constitution for viability in present day American society. It's sometimes frustrating that laws and policies associated with gun control, same sex marriage, medicinal marijuana (national issues, IMO) are so inconsistent between states. However, usurping state authority and completely handing the keys to the federal government on those matters concerns me and many others. So, here we are.

FAMILY SPREE KILLER BRADLEY STONE -- NEW DETAILS CONFIRMED



Mr. Stone’s ^ body was found Dec. 16 in a wooded area about a half-mile from his house, one day after he embarked on a 90-minute rampage across three towns in which the authorities say he variously used an ax, a machete, two knives and a gun to kill his ex-wife, Nicole Stone, 33, and five members of her family while they lay in bed. The killings occurred between 3:30 and 5 a.m.

STONE'S COD -- DRUG OVERDOSE:
The Montgomery County medical examiner’s office determined that the man, Bradley W. Stone, 35, died after ingesting Trazodone, a drug used to treat depression and post-traumatic stress; risperidone, a medication used to treat a number of mental health issues, including schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress; and meta-Chlorophenylpiperazine, or mCPP, which is sometimes sold on the street as a substitute for ecstasy.

VIOLATION OF GUN LAWS:
Montgomery County authorities said Mr. Stone was receiving treatment for substance abuse after being arrested in 2013 for driving under the influence, his third such arrest since 2001. Mr. Stone was placed under the auspices of a local Veterans Treatment Court, put under house arrest for 90 days and prohibited from possessing firearms.

The Montgomery County district attorney, Risa Vetri Ferman, said Mr. Stone had hidden his guns during 17 home visits by probation officers, the most recent on Dec. 8, one week before the killings.

“These inspections were conducted to the fullest extent that the law allows,” Ms. Vetri Ferman said in a statement. “At no time did those home visits/inspections indicate that Stone was in possession of a firearm, and at no time was Stone found to be in a violation of probation and parole.”

THE LONE SURVIVOR:

Anthony Flick, 17, the son of Trisha and Aaron Flick, survived chopping wounds to his head and hands. The teenager, who lost three fingers in the attack, was released from a hospital on Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/25/us/bra....html?_r=0

Glad I didn't try and read your response yesterday HotD. Hahaha .And yes, Christmas went well thanks and I do hope you enjoyed yours as much as we did.


My opinion of the 4473 and call in is that they are good in theory but do not work in the real world. There is no way to verify the questions/answers checked. The only thing that can be checked is the persons background and that is by the call in. Then even that is a hit or miss. Not always does the call in go through as quickly as one might think. If the buyer has a name similar to someone on the no sell list they can get delayed for up to 3 days. Then at the end of the 3 days we have the right to sell the firearm to the buyer even though we did not get the OK from N.I.C.S. . Then with todays technology the ability to produce a fake ID using a real persons info is very real. How do we know if that ID is fake or real? A felon can and I am sure has used such a ID to purchase a firearm under another persons name. Are the 4473's difficult? No , not really. IMO they are just ineffective.


I feel the Ill FOID card is useless. Why should a person need to hold a state card when they already need to go through a federal check? Other than the fact that I feel the federal system is a joke. But lets get back to the fact that one is required in Ill. So if a person wants to carry a firearm they have to first get the FOID card, Then do the training and pay the fees , which in my opinion is what this system is all about $$$$$ , Then they get their CCW card. Now they want to buy a firearm so they now need to go through a NICS call in to get approved. So at that point you will be required to go through 3 background checks. I feel that is a large hoop for a person to jump through. I think that the FOID should be shit canned and the NICS call in should be bypassed once a person has had their background checked out for a CCW.


As far as the universal background checks go, in theory they sound good, but speaking from experience they just wont work. The ATF already requires all gun sales to be recorded , with the exception of family, even at a gun show. Does it happen? Hell No. Private people set up tables or even sell out of their trunks. If a ATF agent shows up the word travels fast and you see people packing up and heading out the door FAST. I feel that for this system to work the promoter of the gunshow should require anyone renting a table to show them a copy of their FFL and keep a copy on their table while at the show [that second part is already a ATF law but no one enforces it] . There should be a FFL setup at these shows with the sole purpose of doing NICS call ins for private sales. Then the 4473, or whatever new number they come up with if/when the actually revise the system, should have a buyers detachable portion that would need to be produced at the door when leaving the show. There is already cops at the doors of every gunshow checking firearms for clear, it would be a easy extra step for them to glance at that portion of the forum. No gun should be allowed to leave the building without proof of ownership. They already clear, tag and zip tie our carry weapons on the way in so that is also a easy step.


My main concern about all these firearm laws is that I DO NOT want big brother to know what I own. If their ever comes a day that they should try and disarm us a list would make that task far to easy. I know, I know, now I am stepping into the grey area, but that is how I and many other gun owners feel. Check us out when we buy and sell? Yes, sure. Keep track of what I own? FUCK NO !!!!!!!

Thanks, F.U.

Everything that you've described as hoops are just (1) process imperfections, which are inherent to any system, or (2) necessary steps for any process involving checks, or (3) your personal disagreement with state-specific legislation.

None of those things are associated with the universal background check proposal, yet you and other enthusiasts often cite the introduction of new onerous paperwork or the creation of extra hoops when explaining why you didn't support the legislation. The argument doesn't hold up. You're instead only complaining about the existing process.

The current system isn't perfect, but it helps keeps guns outta the wrong hands in regards to guns sought through dealers. That imperfect system would help do the same thing with guns sought via private transactions. Then, the imperfect system would have closed one loophole and future system improvements would incorporate all legal gun transactions -- dealer or private; a step in the right direction.

You posted: My main concern about all these firearm laws is that I DO NOT want big brother to know what I own. If their ever comes a day that they should try and disarm us a list would make that task far to easy. I know, I know, now I am stepping into the grey area, but that is how I and many other gun owners feel. Check us out when we buy and sell? Yes, sure. Keep track of what I own? FUCK NO !!!!!!!

Every time any new gun safety/control measure gets close to becoming a reality, the "big brother is gonna create a secret national registry and confiscate all of our guns!!!!!!!" screaming begins, the NRA (talk about being all about $$$ and power, btw) starts pouring everything it has into blocking the changes, and logical progress is stymied by illogical paranoia.

But, as I said upthread, progress is being made at the state, local and industry levels in some cases even though national measures have failed. I expect to see continued momentum in the push for more balance between citizens' rights to bear arms and society's rights to protection against unqualified/unstable citizens bearing arms.

FWIW, I don't consider you a responsible gun owner if you continue not to securely store your firearms and ammo outta reach when you have children in your home. Every single piece of gun safety literature that I've seen, even NRA-produced materials, mandates that responsible gun ownership includes such child security measures. Failing to adhere to that universal safety guideline is one thing that separates a responsible enthusiast from an irresponsible extremist, in my personal opinion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the merits of a gun license and the prudence and value of a transaction-specific background check, even for those holding state licenses and CCW permits. I already explained why I support that current requirement when I responded to Six, and I understand why you don't.

By the way, I don't want to take your arms from you, just so you know. Now, your legs, maybe...

(12-26-2014, 04:47 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: My main concern about all these firearm laws is that I DO NOT want big brother to know what I own. If their ever comes a day that they should try and disarm us a list would make that task far to easy. I know, I know, now I am stepping into the grey area, but that is how I and many other gun owners feel. Check us out when we buy and sell? Yes, sure. Keep track of what I own? FUCK NO !!!!!!!

FU, I read your post with interest and some of your info was enlightening and with an open mind, I was agreeing with some of what you wrote.....until I got to last paragraph. There are laws that we all must comply with so as to have a civilized world. What scenario do you see that you feel "big brother" might seek to disarm you? Sound likes you are very paranoid and only interested in your rights and not what is good for the majority. Speaking for myself, it scares me when you say many other gun owners agree with you. It is for this reason, that we need to get tougher gun laws to maintain a civilized society. Happy New Year!

(12-26-2014, 05:44 PM)blueberryhill Wrote:

(12-26-2014, 04:47 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: My main concern about all these firearm laws is that I DO NOT want big brother to know what I own. If their ever comes a day that they should try and disarm us a list would make that task far to easy. I know, I know, now I am stepping into the grey area, but that is how I and many other gun owners feel. Check us out when we buy and sell? Yes, sure. Keep track of what I own? FUCK NO !!!!!!!

FU, I read your post with interest and some of your info was enlightening and with an open mind, I was agreeing with some of what you wrote.....until I got to last paragraph. There are laws that we all must comply with so as to have a civilized world. What scenario do you see that you feel "big brother" might seek to disarm you? Sound likes you are very paranoid and only interested in your rights and not what is good for the majority. Speaking for myself, it scares me when you say many other gun owners agree with you. It is for this reason, that we need to get tougher gun laws to maintain a civilized society. Happy New Year!

BBH, You need look no farther than current events around the world to see scenarios that might push Big Brother to a confiscation. If our country ever broke down like many around the world have, our gov would not want us to hold our arms. Marshal law would be much harder to uphold if the subjects are armed. You can also use New Orleans as another example. during Katrina common folk had their firearms confiscated for no reason. Most of those firearms were never returned to the owners.
You and anyone else can call me paranoid, that bothers me not. I look at it as prepared not paranoid. Once again, I guess that could be a difference of opinion.
If you have any doubt as to how many people feel just as I do just google survivalist forums and do some reading. Most will not talk about their feelings away from these groups, but there are many many more people that think as I do than you might think. Just for shits and giggles I just went to one group I am a member of and checked the member count. It is currently at 133,886 members. That's a lot of like minded folk at just one group.
Happy New Year BBH.

F.U. Dont ask again!!
[/quote' Wrote: FU, I read your post with interest and some of your info was enlightening and with an open mind, I was agreeing with some of what you wrote.....until I got to last paragraph. There are laws that we all must comply with so as to have a civilized world. What scenario do you see that you feel "big brother" might seek to disarm you? Sound likes you are very paranoid and only interested in your rights and not what is good for the majority. Speaking for myself, it scares me when you say many other gun owners agree with you. It is for this reason, that we need to get tougher gun laws to maintain a civilized society. Happy New Year!

BBH, You need look no farther than current events around the world to see scenarios that might push Big Brother to a confiscation. If our country ever broke down like many around the world have, our gov would not want us to hold our arms. Marshal law would be much harder to uphold if the subjects are armed. You can also use New Orleans as another example. during Katrina common folk had their firearms confiscated for no reason. Most of those firearms were never returned to the owners.
You and anyone else can call me paranoid, that bothers me not. I look at it as prepared not paranoid. Once again, I guess that could be a difference of opinion.
If you have any doubt as to how many people feel just as I do just google survivalist forums and do some reading. Most will not talk about their feelings away from these groups, but there are many many more people that think as I do than you might think. Just for shits and giggles I just went to one group I am a member of and checked the member count. It is currently at 133,886 members. That's a lot of like minded folk at just one group.
Happy New Year BBH.
[/quote]

Please don't tell me you are a Christian, too. You are not from Idaho by any chance, are you? Just curious.....Seriously hope you never have to raise your gun for the sake of oppression in the USA.