This Is Why We Will Never Register Our Guns Or Cooperate With Government Mandates

[thackney]

He didn't do anything, didn't hit her, didn't threaten her, nothing.  BUT if they had found the gun at any point they would have charged him and he would now be a convicted criminal.  THAT is why they want registration.  Because its a tool that can be used to make more people into criminals and thereby unable to own a firearm.

And for someone like me that has a state license and minor security clearance to work, it is a huge hammer.  That is why I will always fight to prevent registration.  It can be used against me in children legal proceedings as well. 

Not to mention, it does nothing to stop current criminals; only create more criminals out of currently law abiding citizens.

[WingNot]

Plus forensics would be able to match the splatter pattern.  😆

Not to mention, forensics could trace the contaminants in the oil to the car it came from and then check the vehicle registrations at the DMV and come to your home and arrest you and take you and your car to jail. 

[thackney]

New from the box I assume.  Otherwise it would make a bit of a mess...

New is pretty, but nearly all suppressors work even better with some fluid.  I know several that normally dump water in the factory-made type then dump out before using.  Those droplets absorb more sound than straight air/metal.

http://www.advanced-armament.com/06-What-is-a-WetDry-suppressor_df_40.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Are these the same folks who wax apoplectic over immigrants defying the law?   What moral authority do you possess to criticize illegal immigrants when you so casually refuse to follow the law yourselves?

there is your problem in a nutshell.

You see no difference in the rights of a citizen vs a non citizen.

Until you do, there is no cure.

[WingNot]

New is pretty, but nearly all suppressors work even better with some fluid.  I know several that normally dump water in the factory-made type then dump out before using.  Those droplets absorb more sound than straight air/metal.

Okay.  Nother dumb question.  Do you predrill an exit hole in the other end of the Fram filter or let the fired projectile handle that job? 

[thackney]

Okay.  Nother dumb question.  Do you predrill an exit hole in the other end of the Fram filter or let the fired projectile handle that job?

I've read about both, but I would pre-drill.  While the tighter minimal opening size would have some suppression advantages, not having clearance between the bullet and filter material is going to result in some uneven drag that effects accuracy.

Maglite kits are out there as well.

Remember, this is a BATFE regulated device and you need to register and pay the fee!

[Jazzhead]

there is your problem in a nutshell.

You see no difference in the rights of a citizen vs a non citizen.

Until you do, there is no cure.

Status as a citizen doesn't give you license to selectively ignore the law.   It is hypocrisy to decry illegal immigration while boasting of your willingness to thumb your nose at the law.   

[Jazzhead]

You seem to ignore this isn't the law.

But it is an understanding that attempts at creating such a law would have extreme pushback before it became law.

Yes, and that's a disgrace.  There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.   

I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude. 

[thackney]

Yes, and that's a disgrace.  There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.   

I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.

I despise the idea that any government imposed tyranny must be accepted, since it is the new law.

We left the Kingdom for the consent of the governed centuries ago.

[thackney]

Yes, and that's a disgrace.  There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.   

I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.

@Jazzhead

The more I reread your post the more I fear I missed your point.

What do you consider the disgrace?

That we don't already have the law?  Or that we would pushback against the notion of even having the law created?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Status as a citizen doesn't give you license to selectively ignore the law.   It is hypocrisy to decry illegal immigration while boasting of your willingness to thumb your nose at the law.   

That mind of yours remains mired in your weird world of obvious denial of differences between a citizen and noncitizens.

Oh, and BTW, you seem to equate an existing law and a hypothetical law as equal.

Only someone insane makes comparisons like that. Hard to believe you claim to be a legal expert


Guess there is little hopen for you after all.

[INVAR]

Yes, and that's a disgrace.  There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.   

I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.

Get used to it.  We do not care what your 'community' of Leftists demand.

We despise those like you who insist that our Inalienable Rights are merely government-granted privileges that can be abolished under the color of 'law'.

[Jazzhead]

Get used to it.  We do not care what your 'community' of Leftists demand.

Who you don't care about is the community of your fellow Americans, and the Constitution that provides for our miracle of self-governance under the rule of law.   

[txradioguy]

Yes, and that's a disgrace.  There are folks here who boast not only that they won't obey the law, but that they'll go so far as to kill peace officers who are tasked with enforcing the law.

Only person that has ever said that here is you.  And you need to stop.   

I despise this F*ck-the-Community attitude.

So did the British in 1776 when the Colonists held the same attitude.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

The more I reread your post the more I fear I missed your point.

What do you consider the disgrace?

That we don't already have the law?  Or that we would pushback against the notion of even having the law created?

I don't care one way or the other whether we have the law.   Yes, I happen to support firearms registration as reasonable, Constitutional and efficacious.   But it doesn't matter what I think.  If the Peoples' elected representatives decide to require Constitutionally-permissible firearms registration, then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply.   Instead I have to listen to the idiots on this thread engage in their masturbatory fantasies about resisting the law, watering trees, and confronting peace officers.   

[txradioguy]

then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply

If the law is in direct violation of the Constitution...then no we do not have to comply.

You clearly think we should be sheep.

[Jazzhead]

If the law is in direct violation of the Constitution...then no we do not have to comply.

You clearly think we should be sheep.

Read what I wrote.  I said "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".   

[thackney]

I don't care one way or the other whether we have the law.   Yes, I happen to support firearms registration as reasonable, Constitutional and efficacious.   But it doesn't matter what I think.  If the Peoples' elected representatives decide to require Constitutionally-permissible firearms registration, then respect for the nation, IMO, morally obligates you and me to comply.   Instead I have to listen to the idiots on this thread engage in their masturbatory fantasies about resisting the law, watering trees, and shooting peace officers.   

The only one talking about shooting others on this thread is you.

As for resisting the law, not complying with registration, we have multiple examples of that already happening on gun registration.  It isn't the fantasy of a few extremest.  It is the reality of large portions of the population already ignoring it where required. 

I'll repeat what I posted above:

Even liberal California and New York cannot get decent compliance with their newly required registration. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/feb/04/loretta-sanchez/sanchez-makes-pants-fire-claim-about-california-gu/

And when Canada tried it, it was such a failure they gave up.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#44c165165a1b

To believe all those in more gun friendly area would comply with such a demand is ignorant of reality and recent history.  If New York is going to get compliance with gun registration, how do you think it will be received in Texas, Kentucky and other freedom-cherishing states?

[txradioguy]

Read what I wrote.  I said "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".   

I read what you wrote.  Doesn't change a thing about what I said.

What you keep missing is the fact that...

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...doesn't leave any wiggle room for "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".   

[thackney]

I don't care one way or the other whether we have the law....

You sure put a lot of time and effort into something you don't care about.

I will make it clear.  I care deeply about it.  I will make vocal my opinion to those proposing it and certainly to my representatives if they even consider it.

[INVAR]

Who you don't care about is the community of your fellow Americans, and the Constitution that provides for our miracle of self-governance under the rule of law.

And yet, somehow in your twisted mind, the plain words in the Constitution that tell your government my right to firearms "Shall Not Be Infringed" - can be reasonably regulated out of existence and abolished and confiscated under the color of "law".

So, we do not care what your "community' demands.  You come take our guns by arming up your government agents to come and take them  The bloodshed that results - will be on your head because you and morons like you will have made that last mistake.

[XenaLee]

And yet, somehow in your twisted mind, the plain words in the Constitution that tell your government my right to firearms "Shall Not Be Infringed" - can be reasonably regulated out of existence and abolished and confiscated under the color of "law".

So, we do not care what your "community' demands.  You come take our guns by arming up your government agents to come and take them  The bloodshed that results - will be on your head because you and morons like you will have made that last mistake.

You just can't make this stuff up.  His thinking on this (or what subs as thinking) is a surreal and stunning disconnect from reality.... typical of most leftists' ""unrealistic, irrational, illogical"" political stances.

And then...  to top it all off.... he has the colossal nerve to call anyone ELSE on this thread an idiot!     

[Jazzhead]

I read what you wrote.  Doesn't change a thing about what I said.

What you keep missing is the fact that...


...doesn't leave any wiggle room for "Constitutionally permissible firearms registration".

Read the predicate clause.  Read Heller.   The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement.  Even ignoring the predicate clause, the right that shall not be infringed is the right to "keep and bear".   The 2A is silent about the rules for the transfer and disposition of firearms.   That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner. 

You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.   

[RoosGirl]

Read the predicate clause.  Read Heller.   The reasonable regulation of firearms does not constitute unlawful infringement.  Even ignoring the predicate clause, the right that shall not be infringed is the right to "keep and bear".   The 2A is silent about the rules for the transfer and disposition of firearms.   That is what registration is getting at - to create the effective conditions for documented transfers and dispositions of firearms, by assigning each firearm to its lawful owner. 

You are not the king who gets to implement your own fantasy of what the Constitution permits and does not permit.

I was wondering when you were going to start up with this nonsense.  Took a little longer than I anticipated.  Thank goodness I've had some masturbatory fantasies to keep me busy in the meantime. 

[Jazzhead]

You just can't make this stuff up.  His thinking on this (or what subs as thinking) is a surreal and stunning disconnect from reality....

Oh, the term idiot is quite apt.  Two centuries of court precedents establish that the reasonable regulation of firearms is not unlawful infringement.  Yet you continue to reside in Cloudcuckooland.