Most liberal states = least free states

Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Improvement of tracking weapons via ownership....especially in cross state transactions. If you've ever moved from one state to another and kept the same car, you know about paper work and registration.....if that was the same for guns throughout the country, you have a better system of keeping up on who legally owns a gun....which seems to be a sore point with some gun lobbyist. But if my suggestion was taken into consideration, guns taken off of criminal suspects/perpetraitors can be more easily traced to shut down an illegal fence.
Click to expand...

Your entire post is nothng but your opinioon and you have nothing to surpport such comments.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Improvement of tracking weapons via ownership....especially in cross state transactions. If you've ever moved from one state to another and kept the same car, you know about paper work and registration.....if that was the same for guns throughout the country, you have a better system of keeping up on who legally owns a gun....which seems to be a sore point with some gun lobbyist. But if my suggestion was taken into consideration, guns taken off of criminal suspects/perpetraitors can be more easily traced to shut down an illegal fence.



Not quite....case in point the U.S.A., where the most restrictive gun law of 30 years was recently rescinded in Washington, DC. Other than that, no national confiscation in my lifetime, or my father's (a retired NYC homicide detective). And then there's Switerzland, etc., etc.

Yes, you have current & historical acts of confiscation by despots, dictators, communist, monarchs. But America, and a lot of other countries, are not any of these.

Damocles said:
Then how do you explain Australia and Britain? First is registration, then comes confiscation.
Click to expand...

England, after the 1997 Dunblane Massacre, went nuts and virtually banned handguns from the general population (rifles, shotguns by homeowners are okay)...and to own or carry a handgun they have laws that make America's look like signing up for softball practice. Australia had a similar situation in 1996 with the Port Arthur Massacre, and had a buy back law instituted along with a ban on semi-auto rifles, handguns and pump action shtoguns. The effect of this is not exactly what either pro/con expect. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

But as for countries that have gun registration and haven't gone the route of England or Australia, you have the Czech Republic (a reversal after the Communist crackdown), Canada (similar to America in the controversy and contentions of registration, back ground checks, etc.), Germany ( who reversed after the Nazi's got theirs). We could go back and forth on this, but essentially because some folk go a certain route is not a guarantee that others will.
 
Improvement of tracking weapons via ownership....especially in cross state transactions. If you've ever moved from one state to another and kept the same car, you know about paper work and registration.....if that was the same for guns throughout the country, you have a better system of keeping up on who legally owns a gun....which seems to be a sore point with some gun lobbyist. But if my suggestion was taken into consideration, guns taken off of criminal suspects/perpetraitors can be more easily traced to shut down an illegal fence.


USFREEDOM911 said:
Your entire post is nothng but your opinioon and you have nothing to surpport such comments.
Click to expand...

Not quite....as you can see below in an earlier exchange, where you essentially put forth these original follow up questions to my statement above:

Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911
1. Do you have statistics that show the percentage of "owners" that the Police needed to track them down??
Taichiliberal: Funny you should mention this. All this gun flap reminded me of an article I read about 2 years ago. Surprisingly, it's still accessible. Check it out http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...guntrace_N.htm

2. What's to stop the criminal from removing the serial numbers, or just getting rid of the gun and then stealing another one??

Taichiliberal: Nothing.....but ballistics and tracing are still used in building a case (the last legal owner of the gun used in a crime can be found....identifying the same gun if used in more than one crime). Like I said, my suggestion wouldn't eliminate crime, but it would stymie a lot of would be criminals from purchasing a gun and help immensely in investigations.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Not quite....case in point the U.S.A., where the most restrictive gun law of 30 years was recently rescinded in Washington, DC. Other than that, no national confiscation in my lifetime, or my father's (a retired NYC homicide detective). And then there's Switerzland, etc., etc.

Yes, you have current & historical acts of confiscation by despots, dictators, communist, monarchs. But America, and a lot of other countries, are not any of these.
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you read up on californias actions following the passage of the roberti-roos assault weapon ban, where the few years before demanded registration of these weapons, then after passage of the ban, ordered them all surrendered. No payment for property.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Then I suggest you read up on californias actions following the passage of the roberti-roos assault weapon ban, where the few years before demanded registration of these weapons, then after passage of the ban, ordered them all surrendered. No payment for property.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was a grace period for registration of specific types "assault rifles", a result of another disaster where a large group of people were killed and these weapons were involved)...a determination of specific type of assault rifles and what was to be kept. After that, the same list of what assault rifles were prohibited was issued. I've read conflicting stories of people who have kept their weapons and those who claim the weapon was confiscated anyway. Now I'll grant you that there should be a legal fight for reimbursement of the weapons...and that should be taken to the courts. But when all is said and done, this goes back to the belief by NRA folk that citizens should be able to purchase any and all weapons that the manufacturers put out. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and hasn't been for a LONG time (case in point, this years state of the art military weapons do NOT end up on the retail market at your local gun shop...but a friend told me some 50 caliber machine guns with mounts are out there). Bottom line: States have the right via legislation to determine the grade of weapons that can be made available to the public....this means that certain weapons are prohibited (i.e., grenades, land mines)...but to date there is no generic ban of guns & rifles.[/COLOR]
 
Taichiliberal said:
Improvement of tracking weapons via ownership....especially in cross state transactions. If you've ever moved from one state to another and kept the same car, you know about paper work and registration.....if that was the same for guns throughout the country, you have a better system of keeping up on who legally owns a gun....which seems to be a sore point with some gun lobbyist. But if my suggestion was taken into consideration, guns taken off of criminal suspects/perpetraitors can be more easily traced to shut down an illegal fence.




Not quite....as you can see below in an earlier exchange, where you essentially put forth these original follow up questions to my statement above:

Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911
1. Do you have statistics that show the percentage of "owners" that the Police needed to track them down??
Taichiliberal: Funny you should mention this. All this gun flap reminded me of an article I read about 2 years ago. Surprisingly, it's still accessible. Check it out http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...guntrace_N.htm

2. What's to stop the criminal from removing the serial numbers, or just getting rid of the gun and then stealing another one??

Taichiliberal: Nothing.....but ballistics and tracing are still used in building a case (the last legal owner of the gun used in a crime can be found....identifying the same gun if used in more than one crime). Like I said, my suggestion wouldn't eliminate crime, but it would stymie a lot of would be criminals from purchasing a gun and help immensely in investigations.
Click to expand...

1. There was nothing in the article that said a single thing about any percentages.
2. IF wishes were horses, beggers would ride - IF turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.

The only tnig you have, are suppostions, placed on congecture, supported by inuendo, and covered in probabilities.


YOU'VE BEEN WEIGHED AND MEASURED AND FOUND TO BE WANTING.
Latter sissie.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
1. There was nothing in the article that said a single thing about any percentages. I forgot that you can't think beyond a certain point. The article was verification that our law enforcement agencies are tracing ownership of guns used in crimes....that only 1/3 of law enforcement agencies are utilizing federal resources give one an idea of the problem. My statement about better registration is in sync with the articles point. But for those that need further convincing, I suggest they read this carefully and thoroughly: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/2006/cy2006-newyork-rev.pdf
2. IF wishes were horses, beggers would ride - IF turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side. And if you could debate honestly and logically, you would.
The only tnig you have, are suppostions, placed on congecture, supported by inuendo, and covered in probabilities. Obviously your trying to turn my own words against me...pity you don't have the cognitive reasoning skills to determine if the accusations are valid in leiu of the recorded posts. In effect, you're just a parrot (no offense to parrots).

YOU'VE BEEN WEIGHED AND MEASURED AND FOUND TO BE WANTING.
Latter sissie.
Click to expand...
(notice that this fool still hasn't learned to spell a school yard insult. I don't know which is worst, the failure of our school system, or this idiots stubborn pride that keeps him ignorant into adulthood)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Like I said, my suggestion wouldn't eliminate crime, but it would stymie a lot of would be criminals from purchasing a gun and help immensely in investigations.



Elucidate, my child, elucidate!

Threedee said:
The who thing was false.
Click to expand...

Translation: 3D doesn't have anything of worth to add to the debate, but seems to enjoy trying to be an irritant.

Have the last word toodles, you're done.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
but to date there is no generic ban of guns & rifles.

SmarterThanYou said:
try purchasing a machine gun manufactured after 1986 then.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but there is NO BAN on ALL weapons to citizens, is there? You are referring to a specific type of weapon, a "machine gun". To date, a plethora of handguns, rifles, shotguns, semi-auto weapons are available. Your contention that registration leads to gun bans was a VERY open statement that would suggest a eventual TOTAL BAN OF WEAPONS. As we reviewed the few countries we each listed, the instances were addressed. I noticed that you didn't acknowledge the FACT that countries like Czech and Germany went in reverse with changes of gov't (total ban to wide civilian ownership of weapons WITHIN rules and regulations). As I said before, Bottom line: States have the right via legislation to determine the grade of weapons that can be made available to the public....this means that certain weapons are prohibited (i.e., grenades, land mines)...but to date there is no generic ban of guns & rifles. So in effect, your broad statement, once placed under scrutiny, is not wholly true.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
but to date there is no generic ban of guns & rifles.



Ahhh, but there is NO BAN on ALL weapons to citizens, is there? You are referring to a specific type of weapon, a "machine gun". To date, a plethora of handguns, rifles, shotguns, semi-auto weapons are available. Your contention that registration leads to gun bans was a VERY open statement that would suggest a eventual TOTAL BAN OF WEAPONS. As we reviewed the few countries we each listed, the instances were addressed. I noticed that you didn't acknowledge the FACT that countries like Czech and Germany went in reverse with changes of gov't (total ban to wide civilian ownership of weapons WITHIN rules and regulations). As I said before, Bottom line: States have the right via legislation to determine the grade of weapons that can be made available to the public....this means that certain weapons are prohibited (i.e., grenades, land mines)...but to date there is no generic ban of guns & rifles. So in effect, your broad statement, once placed under scrutiny, is not wholly true.
Click to expand...

my statement 'registration leads to confiscation' is both historically accurate and factually true. That it doesn't happen in every single instance is irrelevant.
as to the 'no ban' on entire weapons, yeah you can use that argument if you also believe that the 2nd Amendment could then be interpreted to mean that as long as the government said you could have just a single lockblade 3 inch knife, then the right is confirmed, which on its face is ludicrous considering that it says 'shall not be infringed'. furthermore, if 'shall not be infringed' can be defined as 'reasonable regulations', then i guess 'congress shall make no law' has no bearing on whether the president mandates free speech zones and they would be perfectly constitutional....considering he's not part of congress.
 
Ahhh, but there is NO BAN on ALL weapons to citizens, is there? You are referring to a specific type of weapon, a "machine gun". To date, a plethora of handguns, rifles, shotguns, semi-auto weapons are available. Your contention that registration leads to gun bans was a VERY open statement that would suggest a eventual TOTAL BAN OF WEAPONS. As we reviewed the few countries we each listed, the instances were addressed. I noticed that you didn't acknowledge the FACT that countries like Czech and Germany went in reverse with changes of gov't (total ban to wide civilian ownership of weapons WITHIN rules and regulations). As I said before, Bottom line: States have the right via legislation to determine the grade of weapons that can be made available to the public....this means that certain weapons are prohibited (i.e., grenades, land mines)...but to date there is no generic ban of guns & rifles. So in effect, your broad statement, once placed under scrutiny, is not wholly true.

SmarterThanYou said:
my statement 'registration leads to confiscation' is both historically accurate and factually true. That it doesn't happen in every single instance is irrelevant. Wrong....you statement is at best, misleading. The examples I give demonstrate that.....despite your insipid stubborness to the contrary.
as to the 'no ban' on entire weapons, yeah you can use that argument if you also believe that the 2nd Amendment could then be interpreted to mean that as long as the government said you could have just a single lockblade 3 inch knife, then the right is confirmed, which on its face is ludicrous considering that it says 'shall not be infringed'. Again, you're inserting supposition and conjecture in order to maintain a very broad, general statement. No matter how hard you try, you can't remove or deny the examples I gave that essentially undercut the broadness of your statement and subsequent implications. furthermore, if 'shall not be infringed' can be defined as 'reasonable regulations', then i guess 'congress shall make no law' has no bearing on whether the president mandates free speech zones and they would be perfectly constitutional....considering he's not part of congress.
Click to expand...

"If", "I guess" "can be"......once again, you try to substitute your opinion, supposition and conjecture for fact. You can "theorize" until the cows come home, but as I said before, your initial statement was a broad generalization that just doesn't hold up when compared to the fact based examples I gave. So if you're going to repeat yourself 6 ways to Sunday, I'd say we're done on this particular issue.
 
Were there any weapons bans prior to the first acts of regulation? No.

By the way, the first gun bans were placed upon freed blacks in those Southern states which allowed slaves to be legally freed by their masters.
 
Threedee said:
Were there any weapons bans prior to the first acts of regulation? No.

Are ALL weapons banned? No. In fact, I gave your buddy who's smarter than everyone else hard core examples of how gun regulation came into effect AFTER true totalitarian states that banned guns from the citizens were defeated.....and the citizens now have access to weapons.


By the way, the first gun bans were placed upon freed blacks in those Southern states which allowed slaves to be legally freed by their masters.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was called racial discrimination.....not banning a specific (or ALL) weapons from the GENERAL population. Eventually, that was corrected.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, it was called racial discrimination.....not banning a specific (or ALL) weapons from the GENERAL population. Eventually, that was corrected.
Click to expand...

Well, you're in excellent company then. And the reason for those bans was the government feeling threatened. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
(notice that this fool still hasn't learned to spell a school yard insult. I don't know which is worst, the failure of our school system, or this idiots stubborn pride that keeps him ignorant into adulthood)
Click to expand...

C'mon sissie; just admit that your article had nothing at all in it, about any percentage of what you were professing.
Just be a man abouit it, for once in your life.
 
Yeah, it was called racial discrimination.....not banning a specific (or ALL) weapons from the GENERAL population. Eventually, that was corrected.

Threedee said:
Well, you're in excellent company then. And the reason for those bans was the government feeling threatened. Hmm...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, let's get specific about your example here......the ban wasn't against the weapons getting to the public in general , but aimed at a specific group of people not to have them....big difference.

Try as you might, you just can't get past my points dispelling STY statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top