If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Senators say that the NRA is ready to cave on background checks. Anyone felt their hands recently?   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 499
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5097 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 02:44:03 PM

dittybopper: So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.


I never said that.

But I did learn something today, so thanks for that.  I never realized that all these "gun safes" I hear about from responsible gun owners are more like fancified gym lockers.
 
2013-03-13 02:44:29 PM

justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.


The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?
 
2013-03-13 02:46:54 PM

justtray: Okay, the ban went into place in 1989. NO WEAPONS REGISTERED BEFORE THAT TIME WERE CONFISCATED IN ANY SENSE.


Dafuq?

There were no SKS Sporters registered before the 1989 ban, because there was no requirement to register SKS Sporters before the ban... because the ban created the requirement to register.  Seriously.  It's not that hard.

1989: CA creates ban on sales, but private ownership is still legal with registration
1992-1997: CA law enforcement routinely violates gun owners rights because they don't understand the law
1998: CA passes new law admitting they've been violating their own law, then reverses direction and declares lawfully owned (read registered in accordance with the 1989 ban) firearms to be illegal and confiscates them.

What is so hard about understanding this timeline?
 
2013-03-13 02:49:04 PM

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?


Other than no one except the guy asking for it's house get kicked down and no promise, nor registration being used as a means of confiscation, you have a decent point.
 
2013-03-13 02:51:16 PM

Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.

You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.

How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?

Now you try and move the goalposts. Try being honest every once in a while.

I've never brought up VA Tech in any post.

What goalpost has moved? Background checks should actually check for disqualifying events.

Try being honest every once in a while.

So that reference to Virginia Tech (VA is the abbreviation for Virginia btw) that was in your post was not a reference to VA Tech?


Ya got me, Columbo. I have mentioned VA Tech once (twice counting this sentence). You asked, "How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?" as if it was something I've repeated. My apologies for my blatant attempt at deception.
 
2013-03-13 02:52:13 PM

Click Click D'oh: justtray: Okay, the ban went into place in 1989. NO WEAPONS REGISTERED BEFORE THAT TIME WERE CONFISCATED IN ANY SENSE.

Dafuq?

There were no SKS Sporters registered before the 1989 ban, because there was no requirement to register SKS Sporters before the ban... because the ban created the requirement to register.  Seriously.  It's not that hard.

1989: CA creates ban on sales, but private ownership is still legal with registration
1992-1997: CA law enforcement routinely violates gun owners rights because they don't understand the law
1998: CA passes new law admitting they've been violating their own law, then reverses direction and declares lawfully owned (read registered in accordance with the 1989 ban) firearms to be illegal and confiscates them.

What is so hard about understanding this timeline?


Incorrect.

The way it went down was;

1989 law passed, goes into effect in 1992 I believe. All SKS had to be registered before 1992 to be legal.

Then in 1992-1997, a different version of the SKS is deemed "technically legal." (the detatchable vs non detachable mag difference) - A bunch of people go buy this version to technically get around the ban.

1999 rolls around and CA legislature goes, "yeah that little technicality work around you tried to get away with after the ban went into place is not legit, here's money for those guns you should never have been allowed to buy."

I see no issue, no one who had their gun registered before the ban got it taken.
 
2013-03-13 02:53:44 PM
MyKingdomForYourHorse:

We don't live in a bubble, are not nearly as isolated as we once were, and as a society we require rules to ensure the most stupid of us don't harm the rest of us.

So law abiding citizens should be penalized because of stupid people?
 
2013-03-13 02:54:26 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.

I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.


No I think the only problem is your comprehension of laws and an inability to understand how things  actually work.
 
2013-03-13 02:58:55 PM

justtray: GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?

Other than no one except the guy asking for it's house get kicked down and no promise, nor registration being used as a means of confiscation, you have a decent point.


So it's only confiscation if the police physically take the aforementioned item from your person? The police using the registration to find out who had the firearms, and thus being able to carry out the confiscation had nothing to do with them being confiscated either, huh?
 
2013-03-13 02:59:59 PM

justtray: 1999 rolls around and CA legislature goes, "yeah that little technicality work around you tried to get away with after the ban went into place is not legit, here's money for those guns you should never have been allowed to buy."


Your version of the story Vs the actual law:

(f)  (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48


Care to point out to me where it anything about only turning in SKS Sporters purchased between 1992 and 1997?

Bueller? 

The law in fact says " all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions ...or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997. "   In order to be legally possessed between 1992 and 1997 it must have been registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  It can not have been purchase between 1992 and 1997 and have been legally possessed.

For one who accuses me of making things up, you really should try READING THE LAW that you appear to be claiming didn't exist and didn't require the surrender of legally owned and registered firearms.
 
2013-03-13 03:00:04 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: redmid17: It's not as if we sit on the couch stroking them while watching The Walking Dead

Well I know if I had that browning MG Morgan had, I'd be stroking while watching.

dittybopper: Chances are, for all practical purposes, my risk is the same as yours, because both of our risk is very low.

Both are low relativistically speaking to our status, however sorry, statistically speaking yours are higher. Here, let me google that for you.

Its just simple statistics, but like all things ardent pro 2nd amendment people tend to ignore things like math.


If I had the guns Morgan had, I would be sorely tempted to do so as well.

I'll have to look for the link but the Kellerman study was revised a few times, and Kleck (?) got a hold of the full dataset and found there was a 2.7% higher chance that a gun owner would die from the gun. I think Dittybopper linked to it in a past thread, but I do not have it on hand. IIRC it was a CDC or DOJ link too.
 
2013-03-13 03:02:44 PM
Its okay, we only need a little bit of the rights. We can take some of the rights away, no biggie.

Little bit of the 2nd.
Little bit of the 1st.
Little bit of the 4th.

"Cattle car? Why would I want to get in a cattle car? I don't need a shower, Obama Brown Shirt guy, how kind of you to ask."

Just stupid, all of it. Gun control should not even be a debate. No damned law passed by the hippies has done anything other than make life difficult and give the ATF more funding. I loved the debate on one of the bills on C-SPAN. Pub read the statistics on studies of the previous assault weapons ban. Feinstien sat there looking like she ate a rate. No difference whatsoever.
 
2013-03-13 03:07:18 PM

Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?


It's that whole INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thing... ya may have heard of it.
 
2013-03-13 03:07:23 PM

Mugato: dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?


Also if you are convicted of ANY DV related crime. Even the lesser crime of arguing will get your gun rights taken if they can throw on the DV attribute to the charge. Guess what, anyone in your house that you argue with makes it a DV. You don't even have to be involved with them.

In some states you can have the misdemeanor DV set aside to get your rights restored, others not so. They have rules for felons to regain their rights but not those convicted of a misdemeanor DV charge. The system is really very broken with this patchwork application of laws and punishments. The best they can do with the laws on the books is adding weapon enhancement charges during conviction. Until a crime is actually committed, the laws don't do a thing.

Taking rights away isn't the answer as it doesn't work. Punish the crime after it actually happens, not before you guess a crime will happen. Once someone pay's their debt, give their rights back and wait for them to mess up again.
 
2013-03-13 03:08:13 PM

redmid17: No I think the only problem is your comprehension of law


What law am I miscomprehending?  The law about quoting people?
 
2013-03-13 03:12:42 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: No I think the only problem is your comprehension of law

What law am I miscomprehending?  The law about quoting people?


That you think people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns. Try and keep up.
 
2013-03-13 03:18:25 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I agree with you 100% that we should apply similar licensing and registration requirements for automobiles and firearms.

Great idea!


Soooo... any infraction involving the use of a motor vehicle whatsoever automatically means losing your right to drive FOREVER. Any sign of mental stress or imbalance, the same, right?
 
2013-03-13 03:18:52 PM

ferretman: So law abiding citizens should be penalized because of stupid people?


Unfortunately at times, yes they will be.

But if you can find a way for people not to be stupid then I am totally for that instead.

redmid17: If I had the guns Morgan had, I would be sorely tempted to do so as well.

I'll have to look for the link but the Kellerman study was revised a few times, and Kleck (?) got a hold of the full dataset and found there was a 2.7% higher chance that a gun owner would die from the gun. I think Dittybopper linked to it in a past thread, but I do not have it on hand. IIRC it was a CDC or DOJ link too.


Kellerman came to the correct conclusion using dubious methodology and was of course rightly debunked, however Harvard Health redid the study in 2009 using much better methods and corrected for Kellerman's flaws and found that his conclusion was correct that the 4 times more likely is true. The Harvard study however also went on to note that overall the chances of death are very low when compared to other forms of fatality, so in scope your chance of death is still small comparatively speaking.

Pedantic I know, but that's what you get from someone who reads things like statistician and SCOTUS blogs for fun.
 
2013-03-13 03:21:01 PM

NateAsbestos: I wish gun nut cowards would at least be honest here. The argument of "background checks won't prevent dangerous criminals from getting guns!" conveniently leaves out the "...except that dangerous criminals won't buy a gun from a shop because of background checks" part.

At least use truthful language here guys: "Background checks don't reduce gun supply to criminals, so we may as well abolish the background check system so gun sellers can make a few bucks selling the guns to criminals!"

/Got a few guns in my house
//Perfectly fine with any background check


I'm a gun owner. I don't have a problem with background checks; my concern (not concern troll) is that any political efforts to enact this would end the debate nationally. That still leaves the same conditions that lead to the overwhelming majority of gun violence in play and I do not see the mechanism in a regulation like that which would cause any dent in the numbers killed or wounded nationally.

You will still need to mandate state compliance in the management of the database, something that, today, is nowhere near complete.

What is the problem this is supposed to solve? I do not see how this, if it had been implemented ten years ago, would have changed the number of people shot last year in Chicago nor would it have stopped crazy Aurora shooter nor the psycho in Sandy Hook.

At best, I would see a background check provide me, as a seller, small piece of mind on a face to face transfer.
 
2013-03-13 03:21:08 PM

redmid17: That you think people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns.


I do?

Try and keep up.

With what, your fevered imaginings of all the libs coming to take your guns?  No thanks.
 
2013-03-13 03:22:32 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: That you think people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns.

I do?

Try and keep up.

With what, your fevered imaginings of all the libs coming to take your guns?  No thanks.


If you can find any instance of this username ever saying that libs are coming for my guns, I will give you TF for a year.
 
2013-03-13 03:22:35 PM

dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.

I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.

So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.


The nice ones are cool and have lights, dehumidifiers and stuff. You could do worse.
 
2013-03-13 03:23:20 PM

Click Click D'oh: justtray: 1999 rolls around and CA legislature goes, "yeah that little technicality work around you tried to get away with after the ban went into place is not legit, here's money for those guns you should never have been allowed to buy."

Your version of the story Vs the actual law:

(f)  (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48

Care to point out to me where it anything about only turning in SKS Sporters purchased between 1992 and 1997?

Bueller? 

The law in fact says " all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions ...or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997. "   In order to be legally possessed between 1992 and 1997 it must have been registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  It can not have been purchase between 1992 and 1997 and have been legally possessed.

For one who accuses me of making things up, you really should try READING THE LAW that you appear to be claiming didn't exist and didn't require the surrender of legally owned and registered firearms.


None of that contradicts what I said. I bolded it to clarify for you, since you seem to be lacking reading comprehension.
 
2013-03-13 03:25:14 PM

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?

Other than no one except the guy asking for it's house get kicked down and no promise, nor registration being used as a means of confiscation, you have a decent point.

So it's only confiscation if the police physically take the aforementioned item from your person? The police using the registration to find out who had the firearms, and thus being able to carry out the confiscation had nothing to do with them being confiscated either, huh?


Since that never happened, it's really a moot point, now isn't it?
 
2013-03-13 03:26:39 PM

dr_blasto: What is the problem this is supposed to solve? I do not see how this, if it had been implemented ten years ago, would have changed the number of people shot last year in Chicago nor would it have stopped crazy Aurora shooter nor the psycho in Sandy Hook.


Well for the Chicago problem the solution would have to find a way to prevent straw purchasers from gun trafficking weapons from out of state purchases.

One side is proposing a national registry along with check during purchase. So say someone's purchases 50 weapons across several states it might raise a red flag for the ATF to look into.

Perhaps there are other solutions, idk, that just seems the most obvious one.
 
2013-03-13 03:27:46 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: dittybopper: So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.

I never said that.

But I did learn something today, so thanks for that.  I never realized that all these "gun safes" I hear about from responsible gun owners are more like fancified gym lockers.


A lot of them are. Their primary purpose is to keep kids from dicking around with your guns and accidentally shooting something or someone; if you have kids and they have friends and those kids hang out at your house from time-to-time, it is a good idea to have one.

They are also good at deterring thieves  they do take longer to access than simply pulling a rifle off a wall rack or whatever and they do conceal what is actually in them. I believe there is some minimum standard they have to meet for strength and whatnot-most are touted as complying with some CA judicial code.
 
2013-03-13 03:29:26 PM

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?

Other than no one except the guy asking for it's house get kicked down and no promise, nor registration being used as a means of confiscation, you have a decent point.

So it's only confiscation if the police physically take the aforementioned item from your person? The police using the registration to find out who had the firearms, and thus being able to carry out the confiscation had nothing to do with them being confiscated either, huh?


I will step back and say, if we're going to define confiscation as sending letters to people telling them their guns are no longer legal for use, then I simply retort with me previous argument. "So then we can never outlaw a weapon that is in use by anyone?"

I will apologize and say I am technically incorrect then if that is indeed your argument, based on the scope of that definition. However, I think the people saying registration leading to confiscation do in fact mean that they will forcefully take your weapon away and not reimburse you for it. To me, at least, confiscation implies no resistitution, which I think everyone would agree is not constitutionally legal.
 
2013-03-13 03:30:24 PM

Bell-fan: Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?

It's that whole INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thing... ya may have heard of it.


What does that even mean? It's talking about people CONVICTED of a felony.

Is there something in gun powder that turns people into retards? Because I do have a Walther PPK and I need what the booze left of my brain cells.
 
2013-03-13 03:31:58 PM

redmid17: If you can find any instance of this username ever saying that libs are coming for my guns, I will give you TF for a year.


One good straw man deserves another.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:09 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: If you can find any instance of this username ever saying that libs are coming for my guns, I will give you TF for a year.

One good straw man deserves another.


It's not a strawman if I'm right and you just misunderstand everything we tell you.
 
2013-03-13 03:36:11 PM

justtray: None of that contradicts what I said. I bolded it to clarify for you, since you seem to be lacking reading comprehension.


Really, you should read very carefully what you bolded, because I don't think it says what you want it to say.

I'll make this simple for you, since you aren't putting 1 and 1 together to get 2.  Is it legal today to own a detachable magazine SKS in California if it was registered before the end of the 1989 Ban registration period?

No?

Why not?

Again, since you aren't picking this up.  All SKS rifles with detachable magazines, collectively refereed to as SKS Sporters, registered or not, were confiscated in prior to January 1, 2000..

If you think I am wrong, you are welcome to try to buy one.

Or you could, you know, finally just read the law:

 (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.

Again, mind pointing out anywhere in the law that SKS rifles registered in accordance with the 1989 ban didn't have to be surrendered..... as you contend?
 
2013-03-13 03:41:18 PM

Click Click D'oh: justtray: None of that contradicts what I said. I bolded it to clarify for you, since you seem to be lacking reading comprehension.

Really, you should read very carefully what you bolded, because I don't think it says what you want it to say.

I'll make this simple for you, since you aren't putting 1 and 1 together to get 2.  Is it legal today to own a detachable magazine SKS in California if it was registered before the end of the 1989 Ban registration period?

No?

Why not?

Again, since you aren't picking this up.  All SKS rifles with detachable magazines, collectively refereed to as SKS Sporters, registered or not, were confiscated in prior to January 1, 2000..

If you think I am wrong, you are welcome to try to buy one.

Or you could, you know, finally just read the law:

 (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.

Again, mind pointing out anywhere in the law that SKS rifles registered in accordance with the 1989 ban didn't have to be surrendered..... as you contend?


What part of your own quote are you having a hard time understanding? I can't bold it any harder for you.

The law in fact says " all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions ...or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997. "   In order to be legally possessed between 1992 and 1997 it must have been registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  It can not have been purchase between 1992 and 1997 and have been legally possessed.

If you're asserting that they confiscated weapons that were legally registered before the 1992 ban time based on the 1989 law, I'm sure you could find ONE instance of that occurring, right?

I'll wait.
 
2013-03-13 03:42:51 PM

justtray: I will step back and say, if we're going to define confiscation as sending letters to people telling them their guns are no longer legal for use.....


Yes, it is confiscation if the legal authority send you a letter telling you to turn in your property or go to jail.
 
2013-03-13 03:43:00 PM

HAMMERTOE: Uranus Is Huge!: I agree with you 100% that we should apply similar licensing and registration requirements for automobiles and firearms.

Great idea!

Soooo... any infraction involving the use of a motor vehicle whatsoever automatically means losing your right to drive FOREVER. Any sign of mental stress or imbalance, the same, right?


'License and register firearms in a manner similar to automobiles' is not the same thing as 'enact inane consequences for minor traffic violations.' I know, it's a subtle distinction. Every gun control measure is not a part of a nefarious UN plot.

From my earlier post: I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.


Why is this a threat to your freedom?
 
2013-03-13 03:47:04 PM

Click Click D'oh: justtray: I will step back and say, if we're going to define confiscation as sending letters to people telling them their guns are no longer legal for use.....

Yes, it is confiscation if the legal authority send you a letter telling you to turn in your property or go to jail.


And if they say you just have to make it inoperable, that's still confiscation? If they pay you for it, is that still confiscation?

Is that what Mao did? Or the Nazis?

Just want to make sure we're arguing on a level playing field.
 
2013-03-13 03:52:12 PM

justtray: If you're asserting that they confiscated weapons that were legally registered before the 1992 ban time based on the 1989 law, I'm sure you could find ONE instance of that occurring, right?

I'll wait.


Ah, the old "it's not true unless it's easily found on the internet" fallacy.  I notice that you don't refute that it's illegal to own an SKS rifle with a detachable magazine in the state of California, despite it being registered in accordance with the 1989 ban.  Ergo, you've surrendered the point and now are just arguing to keep from having to admit you were wrong.

There is no provision in the law to keep a firearm registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  According to the law, all rifles of the type must have been surrendered prior to January 1, 2000.

Your contention has been thoroughly debunked.

Oh, and FYI:  The fact that legally owned and registered rifles were seized is easily proven.  California spent $1.3 Million in compensation for the registered firearms.  By law, unregistered firearms were not compensated for.  Ergo, the expenditure proves registered firearms were outlawed and seized.

Have a good day.

Try harder next time.
 
2013-03-13 03:55:20 PM

redmid17: It's not a strawman if I'm right


Lets' reverse the challenge - you find one place where I've said that I think "people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns", or else give me a year of TF.
 
2013-03-13 03:55:40 PM

justtray: And if they say you just have to make it inoperable, that's still confiscation? If they pay you for it, is that still confiscation?


Paying someone after threatening to put them in jail doesn't make it right, and it's still confiscation.  Would it make it not assault if I threw a couple bucks on your chest after beating you to a bloody pulp, or not rape if I tossed a twenty at a woman after sexually assaulting her?  If you force a person to turn in or destroy their property under threat of punishment, it's confiscation.


justtray: Is that what Mao did? Or the Nazis?


Yeah... okay, sure... Hitler had to show up sooner or later didn't he.  It's the law of the internet after all...
 
2013-03-13 03:56:24 PM

Click Click D'oh: justtray: If you're asserting that they confiscated weapons that were legally registered before the 1992 ban time based on the 1989 law, I'm sure you could find ONE instance of that occurring, right?

I'll wait.

Ah, the old "it's not true unless it's easily found on the internet" fallacy.  I notice that you don't refute that it's illegal to own an SKS rifle with a detachable magazine in the state of California, despite it being registered in accordance with the 1989 ban.  Ergo, you've surrendered the point and now are just arguing to keep from having to admit you were wrong.

There is no provision in the law to keep a firearm registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  According to the law, all rifles of the type must have been surrendered prior to January 1, 2000.

Your contention has been thoroughly debunked.

Oh, and FYI:  The fact that legally owned and registered rifles were seized is easily proven.  California spent $1.3 Million in compensation for the registered firearms.  By law, unregistered firearms were not compensated for.  Ergo, the expenditure proves registered firearms were outlawed and seized.

Have a good day.

Try harder next time.


Except that you couldn't do it. And yes, no guns that were registered prior to the 1992 ban were confiscated. A fact, which I'm sure you now realize after furiously searching for an example on google and failing to come up with even a single example.

I take this as your concession of the argument. Only my version of the facts was correct and remains such, and the pedantic argument that modified version of a gun that was already ban was force bought back after the ban for the original weapon went into place is the only true history.

Next time I suggest you educate yourself of the facts before reading some right wing outrage and pretending it's true.
 
2013-03-13 03:57:09 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: From my earlier post: I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.

Why is this a threat to your freedom?


Speaking generally, I have little problem with this. I fear that the devil is in the details.

Some particular concerns:
1. How do they determine who a "threat" is? Is there some sort of objective standard?
2. What prevents the mental healthcare professional from flagging anyone who admits to owning a gun and who seeks counseling as a "threat"? They might be personally opposed to firearm ownership and decide to flag everyone. Is there some way of identifying such behavior and preventing it?
3. Who pays for the hearing? How is the person flagged as a "threat" evaluated and represented during the hearing?
4. This may result in people who need help avoiding seeking counseling because they may fear that they'll lose their right to keep and bear arms even after they have treatment.
5. Is there any appeal for the hearing? How many?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad idea and I support it in principle. I just have some concerns regarding implementation.
 
2013-03-13 03:57:59 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: It's not a strawman if I'm right

Lets' reverse the challenge - you find one place where I've said that I think "people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns", or else give me a year of TF.


Fair enough. You did not. You were just completely wrong about calling Dittybopper (not Thunderpipes) irresponsible when it came to gun storage.

/you can tell who is who by the name above their posts.
 
2013-03-13 03:59:29 PM

Click Click D'oh: justtray: And if they say you just have to make it inoperable, that's still confiscation? If they pay you for it, is that still confiscation?

Paying someone after threatening to put them in jail doesn't make it right, and it's still confiscation.  Would it make it not assault if I threw a couple bucks on your chest after beating you to a bloody pulp, or not rape if I tossed a twenty at a woman after sexually assaulting her?  If you force a person to turn in or destroy their property under threat of punishment, it's confiscation.


justtray: Is that what Mao did? Or the Nazis?

Yeah... okay, sure... Hitler had to show up sooner or later didn't he.  It's the law of the internet after all...


I couldn't help but notice you deflecting. You're good at that. I take this as a concession that you agree that confiscation means whatever is convenient for you to fit your narrative.

Also the bolded part never happened, at least not in that order, so that's moot as well. Thanks for the bonus false equivilency, I just chose to ignore that because it is stupid.
 
2013-03-13 04:00:41 PM

redmid17: you just misunderstand everything we tell you.


Also, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding: most of the time when people say they keep their guns in a safe, it's not really a safe, more like a locker.

Because my buddy who's into guns keeps his in a safe, and it looks like this:images.cabelas.com

But when guys like you and dittybopper talk about a safe, you're talking more about something like this, right?

images.cabelas.com
 
2013-03-13 04:05:20 PM

redmid17: You were just completely wrong about calling Dittybopper (not Thunderpipes) irresponsible when it came to gun storage.


Well, that's your opinion.  When someone comes in to a public forum and talks about how easy it would be to steal his guns, I don't consider that terribly responsible.

/you can tell who is who by the name above their posts.

That's biting.  I'm terribly wounded.  Oh! If only I had admitted my mistake as soon as I realized it!
 
2013-03-13 04:05:45 PM

heypete: Uranus Is Huge!: From my earlier post: I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.

Why is this a threat to your freedom?

Speaking generally, I have little problem with this. I fear that the devil is in the details.

Some particular concerns:
1. How do they determine who a "threat" is? Is there some sort of objective standard?
2. What prevents the mental healthcare professional from flagging anyone who admits to owning a gun and who seeks counseling as a "threat"? They might be personally opposed to firearm ownership and decide to flag everyone. Is there some way of identifying such behavior and preventing it?
3. Who pays for the hearing? How is the person flagged as a "threat" evaluated and represented during the hearing?
4. This may result in people who need help avoiding seeking counseling because they may fear that they'll lose their right to keep and bear arms even after they have treatment.
5. Is there any appeal for the hearing? How many?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad idea and I support it in principle. I just have some concerns regarding implementation.


Abraham Lincoln once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Owning a firearm gives one the power to easily exert physical force on another. With that power come some responsibilities. The 2nd amendment isn't a guarantee to free, or even low cost, firearms.

Mentally ill individuals often express violent/homicidal ideation. If somebody says, "the voices told me to start killing..." then there ought to be a legal mechanism to prevent them from buying a gun.

There'd better be an exemption for paranoia or the Fark Militia will initiate an armed revolt.
 
2013-03-13 04:14:46 PM

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: you just misunderstand everything we tell you.

Also, to make sure I'm not misunderstanding: most of the time when people say they keep their guns in a safe, it's not really a safe, more like a locker.

Because my buddy who's into guns keeps his in a safe, and it looks like this:[images.cabelas.com image 262x380]

But when guys like you and dittybopper talk about a safe, you're talking more about something like this, right?

[images.cabelas.com image 221x525]


Actually, both of those are roughly equal in terms of security. If they have a security rating at all, they're likely rated as a "residential security container", which means that they can resist attack by basic hand tools for no more than 5 minutes.

I've actually owned very similar lockers/safes as those that you mention: both have 10-12 gauge sheet steel. The Cannon C23 I owned was basically a bigger version of the locker + drywall for fire resistance + a fancy wheel and bolts. It weighed about 550 pounds. There isn't really any difference in terms of security.

Pretty much any retail "gun safe" is no more secure than the locker you mention. Their primary purpose is deterring the curious and protecting their contents against fire.

Now, one of these is a different story: they weigh more than a ton and a half (with one model weighing more than two tons, while another weighs more than three tons), are rated to withstand power tools for up to 30 minutes.
 
2013-03-13 04:15:59 PM

redmid17: For every police shooting? Maybe for every police shooting that was found to be negligent and/or wrong


redmid17, I wish it was for every negligent/criminal shooting, but, no, it's every friggin' cop involved shooting death in this town, after multiple determinations that the shooting was reasonable or justified.

Look, if you shoot someone in self defense and are civilly sued, all the Plaintiff has to show is that you shot them, you have to prove self-defense (as that if your "defense" against the charges) and the jury is going to hold you to prove you were defending yourself (whether you're a cop or not, although as a cop you should be indemnified by the police department's insurance).  That makes self defense akin to strict liability and I don't know if that is NOT the way it should be.  I mean you killed someone.  There ought to be pretty strict scrutiny of your action which took a life.

And really, I'm not asking anyone to do something I have not.  Strict liability doesn't mean you go to jail, it means you have civil liability.  We have an umbrella policy "just in case" either of us should ever have to use our guns in self defense.
But I think that if most folks knew they were gonna be presumed liable unless they could prove otherwise when their gun fall into the wrong 4 year old or mentally unstable or ex-convict's hands, then perhaps folks would be a hellava lot more careful about where they leave their weapons.  Accidental shooting by kids and many of the recent mass shooting were from folks who got their legal guns that belonged someone else.
Let's make responsible gun owners responsible.

/responsible gun owner
 
2013-03-13 04:17:56 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Abraham Lincoln once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Owning a firearm gives one the power to easily exert physical force on another. With that power come some responsibilities. The 2nd amendment isn't a guarantee to free, or even low cost, firearms.

Mentally ill individuals often express violent/homicidal ideation. If somebody says, "the voices told me to start killing..." then there ought to be a legal mechanism to prevent them from buying a gun.


As I said, I agree with you in principle, though I have concerns regarding the details of such a law.

I don't want criminals or crazy people possessing guns, but I also don't want innocent, non-threatening people who are seeking help from having their rights needlessly infringed. I don't want people fearing the loss of their rights and so avoiding seeking help when they need it.

There's a lot of gray areas that need to be considered.
 
2013-03-13 04:19:16 PM
justtray:

Except that you couldn't do it. And yes, no guns that were registered prior to the 1992 ban were confiscated.

Then where did the $1.3 Million go, since that money could only be payed out to firearms registered in accordance with the 1989 ban.  Are you suggesting that money was embezzled?

Again, is it legal to own a detachable magazine SKS in California if it is registered in accordance with the 1989 ban?  No.  How can that be...  You keep insisting that it is...

justtray:
Also the bolded part never happened, at least not in that order, so that's moot as well. Thanks for the bonus false equivilency, I just chose to ignore that because it is stupid.

So, the State of California didn't send out letters telling people to turn in their firearms or risk criminal prosecution, then provide compensation if they did?

Oh... You're going to hate this then...

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lockyer1.gif

That's the letter for one of the unregistered confiscations.  The ones you claim were the only ones that happened.  You might want to read Paragraph 3:

"Unlike the SKS Sporter Buy-back Program which we will be starting shortly, no reimbursement is authorized in exchange for reliquishing assault weapons registered after the March 30, 1992 deadline."

Oh opps, yeah, that's proof that the SKS rifles registered in complaince with the 1989 ban were also confiscated.  Sucks when your position gets crushed by official letterhead doesn't it?
 
2013-03-13 04:20:03 PM

RedT: redmid17: For every police shooting? Maybe for every police shooting that was found to be negligent and/or wrong

redmid17, I wish it was for every negligent/criminal shooting, but, no, it's every friggin' cop involved shooting death in this town, after multiple determinations that the shooting was reasonable or justified.

Look, if you shoot someone in self defense and are civilly sued, all the Plaintiff has to show is that you shot them, you have to prove self-defense (as that if your "defense" against the charges) and the jury is going to hold you to prove you were defending yourself (whether you're a cop or not, although as a cop you should be indemnified by the police department's insurance).  That makes self defense akin to strict liability and I don't know if that is NOT the way it should be.  I mean you killed someone.  There ought to be pretty strict scrutiny of your action which took a life.

And really, I'm not asking anyone to do something I have not.  Strict liability doesn't mean you go to jail, it means you have civil liability.  We have an umbrella policy "just in case" either of us should ever have to use our guns in self defense.
But I think that if most folks knew they were gonna be presumed liable unless they could prove otherwise when their gun fall into the wrong 4 year old or mentally unstable or ex-convict's hands, then perhaps folks would be a hellava lot more careful about where they leave their weapons.  Accidental shooting by kids and many of the recent mass shooting were from folks who got their legal guns that belonged someone else.
Let's make responsible gun owners responsible.

/responsible gun owner


Okay do you have a citation for that? Chicago has paid out like $45 million dollars in the last 3-4 years due to police misconduct and there wasn't a single case of a payout for a justified shooting.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report