StreetScooby 5 #126 September 2, 2011 Quote When has a weapons database been used in the past to take people's guns? There is no need to for the government to take this action. As soon as a Congress comes into power that feels guns are bad, they would use the database to confiscate peoples guns. Look what Bernie Sanders just did. He released data on futures positions held by every company in America, even though that data was confidential. People who are pro-2nd amendment do not trust the government with confidential information. And they have a valid concern, IMO.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #127 September 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote When has a weapons database been used in the past to take people's guns? History is your friend Translation - rushmc is making unsupportable statements yet again. Careful, Kallend. You're stepping out of your usual vague statements into a flat out lie here. We've talked on numerous occasions about the California SKS confiscations, which occurred only a decade ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #128 September 2, 2011 QuoteWhy do people need to buy assault rifles or any gun in bulk? you didn't define "in bulk" but given your suggestion about gun a month limitations, I'm going to bet bulk means more than 2 or 3. And the reason to buy 2 or 3 at a time is the same reason you might buy two or three anything at the same time - you can negotiate a better price. (like 20% off, in one circumstance for me) The fees around purchases (background check, mandatory trigger locks, etc) also add up, and are cheaper in a single transaction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #129 September 2, 2011 QuoteTranslation - rushmc is making unsupportable statements yet again. Another lie by kallend - registration info was used to collect guns in Canada and Australia. Roberti-Roos was used to confiscate guns in California. NYC and NJ bans in the 90's were used to confiscate guns.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #130 September 2, 2011 Mexican Roulette A deadly gun-running gamble just cost America's ATF chief his job. But the gun lobby gave him little choice but to try. Another article claiming it's the NRA's fault that the current DOJ under Pres Obama is responsible for trafficking firearms into Mexico. This one is so slanted and factually inaccurate that I don't have time to debunk it all. Anyone care to take on that task?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #131 September 2, 2011 QuoteWhy do people need to buy assault rifles or any gun in bulk? Need???? Why does anyone need to buy a parachute? Want???? Well, for example I got a very good deal on buying some weapons in bulk... Just like any other commodity. Also, once I wanted to try out single action/cowboy shooting. So, I bought two of the same model single action pistol. The ATF made me fill out a form for "multiple sales". This is the weapon I bought :http://www.ruger.com/products/vaqueroStainless/models.html So, how many of these do you hear about being used in gang violence? The point is that gun laws only hurt guys like me... People who want to do harm will get them from the black market, not a gun dealer. And finally, the dealers in question TRIED to stop the sales, the ATF TOLD them to sell them. The system WOULD have worked, the ATF prevented it from working and then used the failure to propose additional regulations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #132 September 2, 2011 QuoteIt would seem to me that if you limit the purchase to one assault rifle a month? you could lower the amount of weapons being used to slaughter people in mexico. That is nonsense. They are using GRENADES in Mexico and you can't buy them here. Look at Canada, the boarder is 3X as long as the US-Mexico boarder and the Canadians do not have the same problem. The Mexican gun problem is a problem with Mexico, not the US. Quotedepending on which stats you believe anywhere from 90 to 10 percent. The 90% number has been debunked. QuoteWhy cant we do this? Banning or limiting an item does not reduce the availability to the criminal element. If it did, then the US would not have a drug problem and Mexico would not have a gun problem. I am not willing to punish an honest civilian to put into rules that will not stop criminals. Remember, murder is illegal. Do you honestly think that a person that is willing to commit murder will not use a gun since it would be illegal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #133 September 2, 2011 Quote When has a weapons database been used in the past to take people's guns? Canada: The handgun registration law of 1934 is the source being used to confiscate (without compensation) over ½ of the handguns in 2001. Germany: The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons. Australia: In 1996, the Australian government confiscated ove 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens. California: The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of “assault weapons”, many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government. New York City: In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and ‘registered’ owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well. So there are plenty of examples. http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/12/registration-leads-to-confiscation.html Might want to read this http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #134 September 2, 2011 Quote Translation - rushmc is making unsupportable statements yet again Rush is correct, you are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #135 September 2, 2011 Quote .... Germany: The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came to power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came to power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons. .... Holy Crab. You did your homeworks. How old were you, back then? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #136 September 2, 2011 QuoteHoly Crab. You did your homework. I normally do. QuoteHow old were you, back then? Wonderful thing about studying a subject... You don't have to personally observe the event to know about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
