Trayvon Martin

[Harvrath]

I oppose Firearms Registration. But I am a proponent of registering people who do not own firearms and making that information public domain.

 

[Shaun__]

I oppose Firearms Registration. But I am a proponent of registering people who do not own firearms and making that information public domain.

Why? I fail to see why you care if the government knows you purchased a gun from a dealer. Just curious as to your reasoning.

 

[Nordling]

I oppose Firearms Registration. But I am a proponent of registering people who do not own firearms and making that information public domain.

Why? I fail to see why you care if the government knows you purchased a gun from a dealer. Just curious as to your reasoning.

That and why register people who do NOT own firearms? Sounds like a great list for criminals to use to pick "safe victims."

 

[Shaun__]

That and why register people who do NOT own firearms? Sounds like a great list for criminals to use to pick "safe victims."

If I was a criminal I would just rob the people not on the list after they left their house. Guns are valuable and very easy to resell on the black market.

 

[Bocefish]

I'm not totally against the registration of firearms. However, I am opposed to it for two reasons... if and when the government decides to outlaw them, they know who has what. Secondly, some states think it's perfectly fine to publicize who owns weapons. If they're going to do that, they should also publicize who doesn't own weapons just to make it easier for the dumber criminals.

 

[Shaun__]

I'm not totally against the registration of firearms. However, I am opposed to it for two reasons... if and when the government decides to outlaw them, they know who has what.

I work with people who have the same concern about this. I do not agree with them, but what they do is only buy from individuals. You may want to consider doing that as well if you are truly concerned about this.

Secondly, some states think it's perfectly fine to publicize who owns weapons. If they're going to do that, they should also publicize who doesn't own weapons just to make it easier for the dumber criminals.

Like I said in my other post if you are not on the list for X then you do not do/have X. I did not know any states did that though. I looked it up though and it looks like most of them do this. Thank you for teaching me something new.

 

[Mirra]

This is a good place for more info on what certain state laws allow: http://www.handgunlaw.us/

Meh... that is a good site for info on it but it also makes me sad because SC and GA apparently have some kind of feud when it comes to honoring each other's permits. I happen to live close to the GA border and have seriously considered getting a handgun and the concealed carry permit eventually.

I'm rather an odd case when it comes to all of this stuff. I've always found the NRA to generally be full of shit when it comes to some of the things they push for. This Florida law, for example, needs to be gone. It is so poorly written it's not funny. I am largely a proponent of gun control despite my plans to eventually be a gun owner.

I'm not totally against the registration of firearms. However, I am opposed to it for two reasons... if and when the government decides to outlaw them, they know who has what. Secondly, some states think it's perfectly fine to publicize who owns weapons. If they're going to do that, they should also publicize who doesn't own weapons just to make it easier for the dumber criminals.

That first reason is just silly. "When they outlaw them, I want to be able to break the law by keeping my gun." That's basically what it means. As for the publicizing of who owns weapons, I reckon permits for concealed carry being a part of public record makes a certain amount of sense as a government issued permit. Gun registration also being included makes it no different than vehicle registrations so again I'm not sure what the problem with that is. Maybe I'm crazy. I don't understand what the big deal really is so please explain if I am missing something.

 

[Harvrath]

I oppose Firearms Registration. But I am a proponent of registering people who do not own firearms and making that information public domain.

Why? I fail to see why you care if the government knows you purchased a gun from a dealer. Just curious as to your reasoning.

That and why register people who do NOT own firearms? Sounds like a great list for criminals to use to pick "safe victims."

I see zero reason why Government should know who owns firearms and what type, or even Handgun Carry Permits. Registration is a path to confiscation, it serves no other purpose, and the only reason Government seeks to confiscate firearms is to prevent a Popular Uprising, Rebellion or Revolution. I see no reason to prevent such occurrences, they are for the most part healthy events. They occur most often when government steps out of its Lawful Bounds and becomes a threat to the People. Now, if such records were held by a pro-gun group and Law Enforcement could only peek with a Court Order, then maybe I'd be okay with it.

As for letting criminals know who is easy pickings? Because I'm an asshole. I am so damned tired of having to defend my rights because of other people's irrational fears, over-sensitivity, abuses or hunger for power. This goes for all the Rights in the BoR, not just the 2nd. So, fuck 'em.

 

[Bocefish]

That first reason is just silly. "When they outlaw them, I want to be able to break the law by keeping my gun."

Silly? Really??

If you want to support the disarming of innocent law abiding citizens that respect the law, who does that leave with guns?

Nobody has the right to dictate where how and if I can defend myself or loved ones. Free men and women should have the right to defend themselves, PERIOD.

There's also that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, if the other reasons still seem silly to you.

 

[Nordling]

Balderdash. No one is trying to confiscate your legal weapons.

Gun registration is a way to prevent crime. If a perp is committing a crime with a deadly weapon and they trace the registration back to you, and you have reported the gun stolen, it's additional evidence to convict the real criminal--also, you have a better chance of having your stolen property returned.

 

[Bocefish]

Balderdash. No one is trying to confiscate your legal weapons.

Nah, there's no anti-gun lobbyists anywhere.

That's what they thought in Australia too.



Here's a left leaning cable news outfit on the FACTS of Obama's gun control voting record:

 

[Shaun__]

Here's a left leaning cable news outfit on the FACTS of Obama's gun control voting record:

So he voted for some nuisance law suits when he was in congress? That is his anti-gun voting record? I know he increased the places you are allowed to carry guns after he was elected president, so how come you do not sing his praises for doing that? Seems like a lot of people really hate him for the things he may do at some undetermined point in the future, and not for the things he has done. I will not vote for him, but it is for things he has done.

 

[Bocefish]

So he voted for some nuisance law suits when he was in congress? That is his anti-gun voting record?

Barack Obama on Gun Control
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

 

[Shaun__]

So he voted for some nuisance law suits when he was in congress? That is his anti-gun voting record?

Barack Obama on Gun Control
http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

None of these are votes.

Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
April 2008: "Bittergate" labeled Obama elitist. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)


Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Hale DeMar, a 52-year-old Wilmette resident, was arrested and charged with misdemeanor violations for shooting, in the shoulder and leg, a burglar who broke into his home not once, but twice. Cook County prosecutors dropped all charges against DeMar.

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165 This law would have made it legal to use an illegally possessed gun to defend yourself in your home. He did vote against it., a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Okay so on a federal level he voted to allow lawsuits against gun manufactures, and when he was elected president he approved a federal plan to allow guns in national parks.

As an Illinois Senator he was strongly for gun control, almost like he was exercising state's rights or something. Why do you hate state's rights Bocefish?

I also noticed you used Factcheck.org for a source. Did you read what it said? Factcheck.org They make him look very resonable for the most part.

 

[Mirra]

Silly? Really??

If you want to support the disarming of innocent law abiding citizens that respect the law, who does that leave with guns?

Nobody has the right to dictate where how and if I can defend myself or loved ones. Free men and women should have the right to defend themselves, PERIOD.

There's also that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, if the other reasons still seem silly to you.

Yes... silly really. IF they are outlawed, people who keep their guns are no longer law abiding citizens who respect the law.

As for the Constitution part, I think you brought up the possibility of guns being outlawed first. If not I apologize BUT there's this system called the Justice Department, right? They have this group of people known as the Supreme Court. They get to decide when something is Constitutional or not. As long as the second amendment is still part of the Constitution, you don't have to worry about the outlawing of guns because *gasp* you'll have legal recourse for getting any such laws overturned. Guess what that makes your WHOLE FUCKING POST! Silly! :mrgreen:

I see zero reason why Government should know who owns firearms and what type, or even Handgun Carry Permits. Registration is a path to confiscation, it serves no other purpose, and the only reason Government seeks to confiscate firearms is to prevent a Popular Uprising, Rebellion or Revolution. I see no reason to prevent such occurrences, they are for the most part healthy events. They occur most often when government steps out of its Lawful Bounds and becomes a threat to the People. Now, if such records were held by a pro-gun group and Law Enforcement could only peek with a Court Order, then maybe I'd be okay with it.

No other reason, eh? It couldn't be used by law enforcement to find out who a gun belongs to that was used in a crime? Even if it was stolen from the original owner, that gives them another lead as opposed to having nothing. Well shit... I guess the ability to seek justice for victims is a piss poor reason to be able to track guns.

 

[Bocefish]

Silly? Really??

If you want to support the disarming of innocent law abiding citizens that respect the law, who does that leave with guns?

Nobody has the right to dictate where how and if I can defend myself or loved ones. Free men and women should have the right to defend themselves, PERIOD.

There's also that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, if the other reasons still seem silly to you.

Yes... silly really. IF they are outlawed, people who keep their guns are no longer law abiding citizens who respect the law.

As for the Constitution part, I think you brought up the possibility of guns being outlawed first. If not I apologize BUT there's this system called the Justice Department, right? They have this group of people known as the Supreme Court. They get to decide when something is Constitutional or not. As long as the second amendment is still part of the Constitution, you don't have to worry about the outlawing of guns because *gasp* you'll have legal recourse for getting any such laws overturned. Guess what that makes your WHOLE FUCKING POST! Silly! :mrgreen:

I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't deem it so silly if you were forced to turn in your firearm(s) and weeks later your house was broken into and your wife or daughter was raped at gunpoint. Just an example, but you're fooling yourself if you think it doesn't or couldn't happen. I guess the people in Illinois where it's illegal to own a handgun for self defense are shit out of luck until the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the gun ban there too. How long did it take and millions of dollars for the people of Washington D.C. to get their RIGHTS back? It's in the Constitution and shouldn't take a SCOTUS ruling to approve it. Like Obama basically said and voted... politicians should respect the 2nd Amendment but do whatever the phuck you want in your own city. Yeah, right.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I laugh when the gun nuts are worried about the big bad gov'ment trying to take their guns.

Do you need an AK-47? A bazooka? some machine guns? Explain to me the purpose of a larger magazine for your handgun? There's self defense and then there's looking for an excuse. And what about all the wives and daughters who've been shot by the man of the house who was afraid after he heard a noise and thought someone was breaking in. Because that NEVER happens.

I don't own a gun, I have no desire of ever owning a gun. There, now I know if I get held up tomorrow I know it'll be from a member of this forum.

 

[Bocefish]

I laugh when the gun nuts are worried about the big bad gov'ment trying to take their guns.

Do you need an AK-47? A bazooka? some machine guns? Explain to me the purpose of a larger magazine for your handgun? There's self defense and then there's looking for an excuse. And what about all the wives and daughters who've been shot by the man of the house who was afraid after he heard a noise and thought someone was breaking in. Because that NEVER happens.

I don't own a gun, I have no desire of ever owning a gun. There, now I know if I get held up tomorrow I know it'll be from a member of this forum.

You forgot to post your address.

Nobody said anything about AK-47s, that's a separate argument entirely. If it was up to Obama, nobody could own a handgun or rifle with a magazine ANYWHERE, at least that's how he voted previously.

 

[Shaun__]

Silly? Really??

If you want to support the disarming of innocent law abiding citizens that respect the law, who does that leave with guns?

Nobody has the right to dictate where how and if I can defend myself or loved ones. Free men and women should have the right to defend themselves, PERIOD.

There's also that little thing called the U.S. Constitution, if the other reasons still seem silly to you.

Yes... silly really. IF they are outlawed, people who keep their guns are no longer law abiding citizens who respect the law.

As for the Constitution part, I think you brought up the possibility of guns being outlawed first. If not I apologize BUT there's this system called the Justice Department, right? They have this group of people known as the Supreme Court. They get to decide when something is Constitutional or not. As long as the second amendment is still part of the Constitution, you don't have to worry about the outlawing of guns because *gasp* you'll have legal recourse for getting any such laws overturned. Guess what that makes your WHOLE FUCKING POST! Silly! :mrgreen:

I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't deem it so silly if you were forced to turn in your firearm(s) and weeks later your house was broken into and your wife or daughter was raped at gunpoint. Just an example, but you're fooling yourself if you think it doesn't or couldn't happen. I guess the people in Illinois where it's illegal to own a handgun for self defense are shit out of luck until the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the gun ban there too. How long did it take and millions of dollars for the people of Washington D.C. to get their RIGHTS back? It's in the Constitution and shouldn't take a SCOTUS ruling to approve it. Like Obama basically said and voted... politicians should respect the 2nd Amendment but do whatever the phuck you want in your own city. Yeah, right.

It is legal to own a handgun with a FOID card in Illinois.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

What has he done as President that effected your owning of guns?

 

[Bocefish]

As an Illinois Senator he was strongly for gun control, almost like he was exercising state's rights or something. Why do you hate state's rights Bocefish?

I also noticed you used Factcheck.org for a source. Did you read what it said? Factcheck.org They make him look very resonable for the most part.

I'm NOT against state's rights. I'm against politicians who think they can overrule our rights granted by Constitution.

I didn't use factcheck.org, the linked site I used did.

 

[Bocefish]

What has he done as President that effected your owning of guns?

He can't do anything until he appoints another anti-gun member to the SCOTUS.

 

[Harvrath]

I see zero reason why Government should know who owns firearms and what type, or even Handgun Carry Permits. Registration is a path to confiscation, it serves no other purpose, and the only reason Government seeks to confiscate firearms is to prevent a Popular Uprising, Rebellion or Revolution. I see no reason to prevent such occurrences, they are for the most part healthy events. They occur most often when government steps out of its Lawful Bounds and becomes a threat to the People. Now, if such records were held by a pro-gun group and Law Enforcement could only peek with a Court Order, then maybe I'd be okay with it.

No other reason, eh? It couldn't be used by law enforcement to find out who a gun belongs to that was used in a crime? Even if it was stolen from the original owner, that gives them another lead as opposed to having nothing. Well shit... I guess the ability to seek justice for victims is a piss poor reason to be able to track guns.

We already do that. Law Enforcement can trace a firearm from Manufacturer to the person who carried that gun out the dealer's door. They just have to follow the paper-trail from Manufacturer to Wholesaler to Dealer to Purchaser.

What is actually meant by Firearms Registration is akin to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System owned, operated and maintained by the FBI. Our current system of following the Paper Trail is adequate.

I still remember when the Anti-Gun Crowd was in a tizzy over Glocks that were supposedly able to go through Metal Detectors...

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Paranoia is thick in here, an innocent man gets shot and every other gun owner suddenly fears for the commiecrats to come for their guns.

 

[Mirra]

I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't deem it so silly if you were forced to turn in your firearm(s) and weeks later your house was broken into and your wife or daughter was raped at gunpoint. Just an example, but you're fooling yourself if you think it doesn't or couldn't happen. I guess the people in Illinois where it's illegal to own a handgun for self defense are shit out of luck until the Supreme Court rules on the Constitutionality of the gun ban there too. How long did it take and millions of dollars for the people of Washington D.C. to get their RIGHTS back? It's in the Constitution and shouldn't take a SCOTUS ruling to approve it. Like Obama basically said and voted... politicians should respect the 2nd Amendment but do whatever the phuck you want in your own city. Yeah, right.

Well I won't argue that the process for a lot of these things seems to be a lot more drawn out than it needs to be when it's a blatant violation. I also find it amusing you use the break-in example you did not because it in itself is amusing so much as I just finished re-watching Law Abiding Citizen about 40 minutes ago.

We already do that. Law Enforcement can trace a firearm from Manufacturer to the person who carried that gun out the dealer's door. They just have to follow the paper-trail from Manufacturer to Wholesaler to Dealer to Purchaser.

What is actually meant by Firearms Registration is akin to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System owned, operated and maintained by the FBI. Our current system of following the Paper Trail is adequate.

Assuming once it leaves the dealer all other transfers of the weapon leave a paper trail that works pretty well I suppose. Seems like this could be used to track down and confiscate the guns as well. But you say adequate. Not ideal. I suspect a registration system would be significantly faster. Oh well. At least it's adequate.

I feel better now knowing the police will do an adequate job investigating the circumstances behind the murder of Trayvon Martin. I only hope for an adequate level of justice. This "stand your ground" law, however, is inadequate. It must be changed. It completely throws the idea of appropriate use of force out the window as long as there are no witnesses. At the very least, Zimmerman should be arrested for manslaughter and possibly for murder in the 2nd or 3rd degree in my opinion.

 

[Jupiter551]

Dunno what it's like there but over here if a thief breaks in all they want is a few valuables and get the fuck out, not to murder the homeowner for a dvd player or whatever it is that's feared. On the other hand, if I were a thief living in a country where a homeowner could shoot me just for being there (despite the morality of being a thief, compared to death that;s kinda beside the point) you're damn right I'd carry a gun and if the homeowner pulled one on me I'd probably use it. Not because I'm a bloodthirsty psychopath but because if I don't he probably will.

That seems like backassward logic to me, no offence. If a homeowner may be armed, the thief now believes it's in his best interest to be armed? I get the premise of your gun violence begets gun violence, but that's like saying the thief has the right to come steal your shit and you have no right to try and stop it.

Yeah, these guys just wanted to come and take their shit too, right? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -date.html

In regards to CCW in watering holes... every state has different laws in that regard. This is a good place for more info on what certain state laws allow: http://www.handgunlaw.us/

I'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of who did what, just saying that a potential burglar is more likely to be armed if he thinks homeowners are likely to be armed and shoot.

 

[Bocefish]

Paranoia is thick in here, an innocent man gets shot and every other gun owner suddenly fears for the commiecrats to come for their guns.

lol, it's not paranoia because the antis will and do use every possible means to justify making guns illegal. They're all ready calling for overhauling the Florida gun laws because of Zimmerman.

 

[Mirra]

Paranoia is thick in here, an innocent man gets shot and every other gun owner suddenly fears for the commiecrats to come for their guns.

lol, it's not paranoia because the antis will and do use every possible means to justify making guns illegal. They're all ready calling for overhauling the Florida gun laws because of Zimmerman.

Yep... the "antis" are chipping away at your freedoms. I'll just leave this here.

 

[Bocefish]

Paranoia is thick in here, an innocent man gets shot and every other gun owner suddenly fears for the commiecrats to come for their guns.

lol, it's not paranoia because the antis will and do use every possible means to justify making guns illegal. They're all ready calling for overhauling the Florida gun laws because of Zimmerman.

Yep... the "antis" are chipping away at your freedoms. I'll just leave this here.

Tired of saying the same thing over and over again, lolz

I really find it hard to believe Zimmerman hasn't been arrested. If this "Stand your ground" law allows things like this to happen, then it has to be changed.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

The law is fine for the idea behind it. The problem is not with the law it is is with the police who are not properly investigating the people who are claiming protection under it.

I know this, because when a guy they tell in no uncertain terms "DO NOT PURSUE" does just that and kills an unarmed child, with him screaming help in the background of the 911 calls.

It's the cops job to investigate and determine if the law has been broken, or if the law you are seeking to be protected under doesn't apply.

I read the Fl. law online. It does not allow you to chase anyone you feel is a threat. This asshole was in a p[position of safety, on the phone with 911, and defied their instructions and took off after this suspect on his own. The second he left his car and started chasing this kid, he was no longer under the umbrella of this "stand your ground" law.

The law is a good idea. It gives victims an option to use deadly force and not have to think about the consequences if they are in mortal danger.

The police have abused and broken the law as much as this zimmerman asshole. he should have immediately been arrested and charged with a half dozen charges.

I don't know about you, but if I am in a situation where the use of deadly force is an option to save myself for someone else from a car jacker or a bank robber or something, I want to know the law is not gonna charge me with not running away and leaving someone else to die. In my state, if there is anyone not invited in my house up to no good, I can kill them, pretty much no questions asked assuming, !!!!!!! there is enough evidence that they were actually a threat or up to no good.

But if I am at the 7-11 buying a candy bar and some asshole pulls out a gun on the cashier, I am required to cower behind the ice cream freezer or, run away.
Fuck that, I would love to have the option to smash the asshole over the head with a fire extinguisher or something and NOT be thinking "jebus, if this guy dies, they are gonna fry me!"

And that's what would happen.... or worse the robber could sue me for everything I own if I cripple him.

The stand your ground law is a good idea. It's very poorly enforced and the people claiming it's protection are very poorly investigated.

The cops are equally to blame for not doing their job. The law is not the problem, and the guns are not the problem.