Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Big Jim P]

Thankfully NY is just a bad memory for me.

COME BACK HERE

There is nothing in heaven or hell that could make me return to that festering shithole.

[Kvatchdom]

What is NSG's opinion on the availability of air rifles such as the Air Force Texan SS?

Don't get me wrong, I love this thing. But should there be a registration requirement to possess it due to the high FPS and the addition of a silencer, on an air rifle? Like, in Canada you need to register the non-silenced version of this, and it's illegal to possess the silenced version. I personally call BS on the strict laws, but it's Canada.

Why, when there is no registration requirement to own real firearms in the U.S.? At least not in the more reasonable parts of the country.

Registration does not seem very unreasonable in comparison to many other laws.

[Telconi]

Why, when there is no registration requirement to own real firearms in the U.S.? At least not in the more reasonable parts of the country.

Registration does not seem very unreasonable in comparison to many other laws.

Registration is potentially the most unreasonable law that could be proposed.

[Kvatchdom]

Registration does not seem very unreasonable in comparison to many other laws.

Registration is potentially the most unreasonable law that could be proposed.

How come?

[Telconi]

Registration is potentially the most unreasonable law that could be proposed.

How come?

The disclosure of all posessed firearms to a government hostile to the idea that you own such firearms is ... problematic...

[Big Jim P]

Registration does not seem very unreasonable in comparison to many other laws.

Registration is potentially the most unreasonable law that could be proposed.

Very true, which puts it at the very top of the "no more "compromise"' list.

[Kvatchdom]

How come?

The disclosure of all posessed firearms to a government hostile to the idea that you own such firearms is ... problematic...

That would be very difficult to do, and unlikely in the US. I doubt any government you've had has been hostile against any ownership of firearms, especially when it's just in your homes. Registration would make it easier to track thefts or otherwise illegally brought in weapons I would think.

[Big Jim P]

Registration is potentially the most unreasonable law that could be proposed.

How come?

It is no one elses business whether or not I exercise my right to own a gun, how many or what kind.

[Kvatchdom]

How come?

It is no one elses business whether or not I exercise my right to own a gun, how many or what kind.

Yes, it is. It's very important to know where possible murder weapons or suicide tools reside or resided after the fact, if such is to pass, to track criminality properly. Other than that, I think people should be able to own whatever gun they get their hands on.

[Big Jim P]

It is no one elses business whether or not I exercise my right to own a gun, how many or what kind.

Yes, it is. It's very important to know where possible murder weapons or suicide tools reside or resided after the fact, if such is to pass, to track criminality properly. Other than that, I think people should be able to own whatever gun they get their hands on.

Missed my earlier post about no more "compromises" and registration being the top of the list?

Registration makes it far to easy for the government to confiscate the guns, thus infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Kvatchdom]

Yes, it is. It's very important to know where possible murder weapons or suicide tools reside or resided after the fact, if such is to pass, to track criminality properly. Other than that, I think people should be able to own whatever gun they get their hands on.

Missed my earlier post about no more "compromises" and registration being the top of the list?

Registration makes it far to easy for the government to confiscate the guns, thus infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

You are very safe from the government doing that in the US my guy.

[Big Jim P]

Missed my earlier post about no more "compromises" and registration being the top of the list?

Registration makes it far to easy for the government to confiscate the guns, thus infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

You are very safe from the government doing that in the US my guy.

And we intend to keep it that way.

[Kvatchdom]

You are very safe from the government doing that in the US my guy.

And we intend to keep it that way.

Reacting to a nonexistent threat seems silly.

[Telconi]

The disclosure of all posessed firearms to a government hostile to the idea that you own such firearms is ... problematic...

That would be very difficult to do, and unlikely in the US. I doubt any government you've had has been hostile against any ownership of firearms, especially when it's just in your homes. Registration would make it easier to track thefts or otherwise illegally brought in weapons I would think.

Every government I've had has been hostile to the ownership of firearms.

[Big Jim P]

And we intend to keep it that way.

Reacting to a nonexistent threat seems silly.

That threat is hardly nonexistant. There are new confiscatory laws in several states, guns were confiscated during hurricane Katrina. I am sure other instances have already been mentioned in this thread and it's predecessors. I could look them up, but I am going to bed soon.

[Kvatchdom]

Reacting to a nonexistent threat seems silly.

That threat is hardly nonexistant. There are new confiscatory laws in several states, guns were confiscated during hurricane Katrina. I am sure other instances have already been mentioned in this thread and it's predecessors. I could look them up, but I am going to bed soon.

Indeed it is. None of these confiscations have been done to oppress gun owners, but as reactions to events that necessitate it.

[Big Jim P]

That would be very difficult to do, and unlikely in the US. I doubt any government you've had has been hostile against any ownership of firearms, especially when it's just in your homes. Registration would make it easier to track thefts or otherwise illegally brought in weapons I would think.

Every government I've had has been hostile to the ownership of firearms.

Government likes to minimize the independence of it's citizens. If we can defend ourselves, we have less of a need for the government.

[Kvatchdom]

Every government I've had has been hostile to the ownership of firearms.

Government likes to minimize the independence of it's citizens. If we can defend ourselves, we have less of a need for the government.

They've been able to do worse things that take your guns to your freedom without taking your guns.

[Big Jim P]

That threat is hardly nonexistant. There are new confiscatory laws in several states, guns were confiscated during hurricane Katrina. I am sure other instances have already been mentioned in this thread and it's predecessors. I could look them up, but I am going to bed soon.

Indeed it is. None of these confiscations have been done to oppress gun owners, but as reactions to events that necessitate it.

None of the events necessitated it, especially not natural disasters such as Katrina. That's when people need to be able to defend themselves and there property the most.

[Kvatchdom]

Indeed it is. None of these confiscations have been done to oppress gun owners, but as reactions to events that necessitate it.

None of the events necessitated it, especially not natural disasters such as Katrina. That's when people need to be able to defend themselves and there property the most.

That's also when people are most likely to commit violence or theft with guns.

[Big Jim P]

None of the events necessitated it, especially not natural disasters such as Katrina. That's when people need to be able to defend themselves and there property the most.

That's also when people are most likely to commit violence or theft with guns.

Exactly. Thus the need to defend ones self and property. Duh.

[Kvatchdom]

That's also when people are most likely to commit violence or theft with guns.

Exactly. Thus the need to defend ones self and property. Duh.

Or kill someone you think looks scary on the street because you read about thefts on the paper.

[Telconi]

Government likes to minimize the independence of it's citizens. If we can defend ourselves, we have less of a need for the government.

They've been able to do worse things that take your guns to your freedom without taking your guns.

Such as?

[Spirit of Hope]

The disclosure of all posessed firearms to a government hostile to the idea that you own such firearms is ... problematic...

That would be very difficult to do, and unlikely in the US. I doubt any government you've had has been hostile against any ownership of firearms, especially when it's just in your homes. Registration would make it easier to track thefts or otherwise illegally brought in weapons I would think.

The problem is registration plans in the US have already been used as a means to control firearms, either by making the process of registration burdensome (time and money) or by closing the registration so no new firearms may be added to it (a effective ban on the item). This obviously makes gun owners wary of registration schemes, because today's registration could very easily be tomorrows control.

That threat is hardly nonexistant. There are new confiscatory laws in several states, guns were confiscated during hurricane Katrina. I am sure other instances have already been mentioned in this thread and it's predecessors. I could look them up, but I am going to bed soon.

Indeed it is. None of these confiscations have been done to oppress gun owners, but as reactions to events that necessitate it.

Please identify the event that necessitated the Hughes amendment. While it is hardly oppressive to make it so no new civilian fully automatic firearms may be manufactured, the law served no purpose because firearms that had been legally registered under the NFA were incredibly rare in crime. "Assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes, yet California has created a registry for them (and then closed that registry).

None of the events necessitated it, especially not natural disasters such as Katrina. That's when people need to be able to defend themselves and there property the most.

That's also when people are most likely to commit violence or theft with guns.

Only 1/5th of gun crime or so is committed by the legal owner of the firearm, 40% of violent offenders are prohibited persons, and the vast majority of criminals get their firearms through either the black or grey market. Saying a natural disaster is a proper time to take away the firearms of those who legally own them seams rather silly to me.

Exactly. Thus the need to defend ones self and property. Duh.

Or kill someone you think looks scary on the street because you read about thefts on the paper.

Which would be a crime. Despite what the news may say you can not willy nilly commit homicide and use self defense as your criminal defense. People illegally killing a person and then trying to use self defense as an excuse is probably much rarer than people actually defending themselves.

[Estanglia]

And we intend to keep it that way.

Reacting to a nonexistent threat seems silly.

It might not be a threat now, but if a government knows the exact location of your guns and an anti-gun party controls the government...
You're not gonna keep your guns for long.

None of the events necessitated it, especially not natural disasters such as Katrina. That's when people need to be able to defend themselves and there property the most.

That's also when people are most likely to commit violence or theft with guns.

Which is why gun owners have guns. To put a bullet in the bad guy.

Exactly. Thus the need to defend ones self and property. Duh.

Or kill someone you think looks scary on the street because you read about thefts on the paper.

Which is illegal.