Registration WILL lead to CONFISCATION. Don't trust the takers.

Superfreak said:
So you are going to continue to ignore the video in the OP? Continue to pretend that didn't spell out precisely what this thread was about?

I had no clue you were from AOL, nor do I care.
Click to expand...


Yes...yes I am.

This isn't Canada and I'm NOT Canadian. Nor do I care one whit what happened to gun owners in Canada...I don't live there

No one has yet to prove that registration WILL lead to confiscation in THIS COUNTRY...the USA!
 
Jarod said:
Soooo, nobody wants to discuss this?
Click to expand...
I gave you all the reason one needs to disregard these rulings as violations of the constitution. nowhere in the entire constitution does it give the courts the power to give the government a compelling interest to restrict the rights of we the people.
 
Thing1 said:
Beyond that, law enforcement everywhere favors things like a ban on assault weapons. Why is that? Because it's effective in reducing violence & crime.
Click to expand...
that assumes facts not in evidence. if you have a legitimate study showing reduced crime (in the US) after an assault weapons ban BECAUSE of the ban, then post it. otherwise, the only reason law enforcement favors an AWB is because they want to the the best and most heavily armed people out there. point blank.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that assumes facts not in evidence. if you have a legitimate study showing reduced crime (in the US) after an assault weapons ban BECAUSE of the ban, then post it. otherwise, the only reason law enforcement favors an AWB is because they want to the the best and most heavily armed people out there. point blank.
Click to expand...

Im going to assume that you meant was that they want to "be" the best and most heavily armed, and yeah you're right. Do you really think that any society can function when the law is weaker than those elements breaking it? In extrapolation would you send a six year old with a stick into the ghetto and tell him to stop drug deals? While people should believe in the honesty of police officers, they should also know that if they break the law, the law will break them.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that assumes facts not in evidence. if you have a legitimate study showing reduced crime (in the US) after an assault weapons ban BECAUSE of the ban, then post it. otherwise, the only reason law enforcement favors an AWB is because they want to the the best and most heavily armed people out there. point blank.
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting that the entire premise of a thread which has been debated for this long assumes facts not in evidence?
 
Why would a sane individual, living in a civilised and therefore safe society feel the need to carry a tool with which to kill his fellow citizens?
a) America is not civilised?
b) America is not safe?
c) the individual in question is paranoid.
d) The individual in question should be banned from carrying anything but a stuffed toy.
 
Disillusioned said:
Im going to assume that you meant was that they want to "be" the best and most heavily armed, and yeah you're right. Do you really think that any society can function when the law is weaker than those elements breaking it? In extrapolation would you send a six year old with a stick into the ghetto and tell him to stop drug deals? While people should believe in the honesty of police officers, they should also know that if they break the law, the law will break them.
Click to expand...
doesn't it go against the intent of the second amendment, you know that whole thing about the founders fearing a standing army and all? shouldn't the law abiding citizens be better armed than the government? and yes, I meant 'be the best'.
 
Thing1 said:
Isn't it interesting that the entire premise of a thread which has been debated for this long assumes facts not in evidence?
Click to expand...
you've been shown the facts in evidence. california enacted assault weapons registration, then 18 months later redefined the weapons that were banned and started confiscating the registered weapons.
 
Lowaicue said:
Why would a sane individual, living in a civilised and therefore safe society feel the need to carry a tool with which to kill his fellow citizens?
Click to expand...
fallacious argument. unless you're saying that every cop, federal agent, and military member are insane?
Lowaicue said:
a) America is not civilised?
b) America is not safe?
c) the individual in question is paranoid.
d) The individual in question should be banned from carrying anything but a stuffed toy.
Click to expand...
or Americans believe in freedom and liberty, with the extra ability to protect their own rights from anyone desiring to steal them.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you've been shown the facts in evidence. california enacted assault weapons registration, then 18 months later redefined the weapons that were banned and started confiscating the registered weapons.
Click to expand...

So, you're still contending that when something HAS happened, it definitely WILL happen again...every time?

I assume you realize how illogical that is?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
fallacious argument. unless you're saying that every cop, federal agent, and military member are insane?
or Americans believe in freedom and liberty, with the extra ability to protect their own rights from anyone desiring to steal them.
Click to expand...

You just chose (d)
 
SmarterthanYou said:
fallacious argument. unless you're saying that every cop, federal agent, and military member are insane?
or Americans believe in freedom and liberty, with the extra ability to protect their own rights from anyone desiring to steal them.
Click to expand...

Is every gun owner in America a cop or federal agent or a member of the military? No? Well, what a surprise!
 
Thing1 said:
So, you're still contending that when something HAS happened, it definitely WILL happen again...every time?

I assume you realize how illogical that is?
Click to expand...
the argument that slippery slope is a fallacy is based upon the predicate that A will lead to B in such a short time that we all notice it. That is not always the case as we have historically seen with automatic weapons. In '34 the NFA (national firearms act) was implemented that placed a $200 transfer tax on automatic weapons. This was done because the federal government was fully aware that the 2nd Amendment did not allow them to regulate firearms. The commerce clause, however, did allow them to tax commercial items. At the time, an automatic weapon didn't even cost that much, so it effectively eliminated most of the automatic weapons market for private citizens. Call that step A. 34 years later they wrote the GCA of 68, which required most mail order purchases to go through FFLs. Now, we all 'know' that the law required the government to destroy most of these records after the purchases, but we also 'know' that the government hardly ever follows the law unless it's to their benefit. Call that step B. In 86, congress wrote a new set of laws to try to protect gun owners during their travels. A 'poison pill' was inserted in to that law called the 'hughes amendment', which prohibited machine gun possession for private citizens, all government law enforcement agents exempted. one court case challenged that amendment, but our power hungry overlords called the supreme court sided with the government stating that they could indeed prohibit machine gun ownership, but only on automatics manufactured AFTER the date the law was signed. May 19, 1986. Call that Step C. Now, any time there's an incident of any kind where a machine gun might be involved, the feds get involved and if there is no transfer tax stamp accompanying said machine gun, it is confiscated. Call that Step D.

So, history lesson concluded. All gun control laws lead to bans/prohibitions, which lead to confiscations. registration laws included.

Do I need to re-explain the roberti-roos act to you again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top