Don't be surprised if your doctor asks you about guns

[driftdiver]

Sure.  Diane Feinstein.  There have been politicians freaking out about guns my whole live, and I just turned 60.

The first gun control laws were passed in the late 1500s in Europe.  Shortly after firearms were invented.   They were proposed for the same reasons as today, because they scare the govt tyrants.

[INVAR]

Is that the idjit running for Sheriff somewhere?

North Carolina.

Eff him, he's a laughingstock. 

Not to the despotic morons applauding him he's not.  Neither is it to a huge swath of the electorate in the county he's running (Asheville).  The San Fransisco of the East.

[Axeslinger]

Sure.  Diane Feinstein.  There have been politicians freaking out about guns my whole life, and I just turned 60.

Point conceded

[Restored]

I can't help but laugh at the idea that registering guns in Idaho will stop them from killing people in Baltimore. Guns are already registered. I have filled out the forms many times. The government is aware of every gun I ever bought.

I bet we could make cars safer by requiring that owners register them with the state. If it saves one life, it will be worth it.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty
@Victoria33

We're having a lovely spring.  Today is 55 and rainy.   I'm holding on for dear life to every cool day.

I just punched up my weather forecast.  Upper 90's.

[Cyber Liberty]

Point conceded

Doesn't deny the fact that you have to watch these peckerwoods every damned second.  They'll walk on the bodies of dead children to promote their goals...they're doing it right now, as @INVAR would say, to thunderous applause.

It's that Chess game I was talking about earlier.  They can't do diddly to us as long as they can't get our weapons away from us, whether we intend to use them or not.  Their mere existence sticks in their craw.  Look at the terms our hyperbolic friend in this thread uses to describe our beliefs.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, that sounded even more idiotic when it went down on paper, didn't it?  "Why, criminals will naturally just hand over their weapons when they're illegal." 
 

They can't keep guns out of geographically tiny Chicago, New York, and LA... How the hell do they think they can keep them out of the whole damn country?

They can't keep truckloads of illegal aliens and illegal drugs out of the country... How the hell are they going to stop truckloads of illegal firearms and ammunition?

The premise is absurd on its face. Wholly ludicrous. Laughable.

How anyone thinks that way... 

[Cyber Liberty]

They can't keep guns out of geographically tiny Chicago, New York, and LA... How the hell do they think they can keep them out of the whole damn country?

They can't keep truckloads of illegal aliens and illegal drugs out of the country... How the hell are they going to stop truckloads of illegal firearms and ammunition?

The premise is absurd on its face. Wholly ludicrous. Laughable.

How anyone thinks that way... 

They have the arrogance to believe people will do what they are told.  Judges and lawyers are notorious for this idiocy. They are shocked (shocked! ) when someone defies them.

[roamer_1]

I just punched up my weather forecast.  Upper 90's.

Blue skies and sixties for the first time this year today... Lilacs and willows are budding out... Still, nobody is saying that 'S' word, for fear of jinxing it.

I have to get the tractor running so I can mow this place. Touchy business... If I do it too soon, it will snow a couple feet. If I wait to long, it will grow a couple feet... 

[INVAR]

How anyone thinks that way... 

Tyrants and advocates for tyranny ALWAYS "think" that way, because stopping predators on the populace is not the goal.

Eradicating the ability of the people to resist them IS the goal.

They have the arrogance to believe people will do what they are told.  Judges and lawyers are notorious for this idiocy. They are shocked (shocked! ) when someone defies them.

Exactly.  They are not only shocked, but outraged that any would dare openly defy their ideas or openly discuss defying the agents of the state they want to empower to enforce their tyranny.

Like I said - they are going to have to empower their government to kill a whole lot of us.

Which is what some of them openly state they want to do anyway.

[roamer_1]

Tyrants and advocates for tyranny ALWAYS "think" that way, because stopping predators on the populace is not the goal.

Eradicating the ability of the people to resist them IS the goal.

That is EXACTLY right. Their means are ineffective for any other thing.

[Jazzhead]

Tyrants and advocates for tyranny ALWAYS "think" that way, because stopping predators on the populace is not the goal.

Eradicating the ability of the people to resist them IS the goal.

. . . Like I said - they are going to have to empower their government to kill a whole lot of us.

What paranoid bullcrap.  We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic, based on the rule of law.   

This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as violent whackjobs.  Thankfully, INVAR has renounced the GOP -  the party hardly needs to be associated with such douchebaggery.     

[driftdiver]

What paranoid bullcrap.  We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic.   

This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as whackjobs.   

@Jazzhead
It takes more than words to keep us a Constitutional Republic.

You twist the Constitution to mean what you want it to mean.  You undermine the rule of law.

The left has openly stated what they want and it aint empowerment of the American citizen.

[INVAR]

What paranoid bullcrap. 

History speaks as well as the human nature of tyranny advocates like you. 

As I said, tyrants and advocates like you are not interested in stopping criminals, but eradicating the ability of the people to resist you when you attempt to implement your ideas using the government to do so.

We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic, based on the rule of law.

Your ideas and advocacy undermine the rule of law and obliterate the idea of a Constitutional Republic.  Your ideas are PRECISELY a tyranny, and we will consider any attempt to implement your agenda and ideas as over tyranny and treat it as such.   

This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as violent whack jobs.

Only to Leftists, Communists and intolerant douchebags that think like you do.

Thankfully, INVAR has renounced the GOP -  the party hardly needs to be associated with such douchebaggery.   

Considering your party is now associated with the entirety of the Democrat Leftist agenda, including gun grabs - my renunciation is justified.

[Axeslinger]

What paranoid bullcrap.  We aren't a tyranny, we are a Constitutional republic, based on the rule of law.   

This is the sort of talk that unfortunately gives conservatives a reputation as violent whackjobs.  Thankfully, INVAR has renounced the GOP -  the party hardly needs to be associated with such douchebaggery.   

@Jazzhead

I notice you’re still too gutless to confirm that you’ll be volunteering to go door knocking to implement your bullshit plot...scurry along to DU... they love gun grabbers over there.

[Cyber Liberty]

How boring.  I waste hours sitting in a stupid meeting at work, and the lecturing is still rolling on when I get back.  Our own version of Davy Hogg is still arguing  bullshit with us old-ass people, needing him to show us how to operate our government and our lives.

[Jazzhead]

As I said, tyrants and advocates like you are not interested in stopping criminals, but eradicating the ability of the people to resist you when you attempt to implement your ideas using the government to do so.

What else can I say except you're out of your mind.  But I love getting you going.   

Your ideas and advocacy undermine the rule of law and obliterate the idea of a Constitutional Republic.  Your ideas are PRECISELY a tyranny, and we will consider any attempt to implement your agenda and ideas as over tyranny and treat it as such. 

Oh please.  I advocate simple registration, to give law enforcement the tools it needs to ascertain where criminals get their guns.   No threat or  burden to you, unless you sell or buy guns off the back of trucks.     

[RoosGirl]

What else can I say except you're out of your mind.  But I love getting you going.   

Oh please.  I advocate simple registration, to give law enforcement the tools it needs to ascertain where criminals get their guns.   No threat or  burden to you, unless you sell or buy guns off the back of trucks.     

Either you're stupid or you think we're stupid enough to believe that criminals who sell and buy guns are going to start registering their guns.  Get the Rochester out of here with that bullshit.  The only other explanation is that you, being a douchebag lawyer, must stand to make some money off of this registration scam you're hyping.

[WingNot]

Either you're stupid or you think we're stupid enough to believe that criminals who sell and buy guns are going to start registering their guns.  Get the Rochester out of here with that bullshit.  The only other explanation is that you, being a douchebag lawyer, must stand to make some money off of this registration scam you're hyping.

I like your style.   

[Cyber Liberty]

I like your style.   

Especially when she's so damned correct about something.  Of her two possibilities she lists right upfront, my money's on the second.  He's misguided but certainly not stupid.

[INVAR]

Oh please.  I advocate simple registration, to give law enforcement the tools it needs to ascertain where criminals get their guns.

No.  What you advocate is a war and a bloodbath, because as you noted earlier - our refusal to comply with your stupid tyrannical idea will have you applauding cops with guns being sent in to enforce your bullshit "law".  Rest assured, that act will have Unintended Consequences for you and the nation itself should any idiots with influence actually attempt it.

No threat or  burden to you, unless you sell or buy guns off the back of trucks.     

Yes it is.  It is a DIRECT THREAT TO OUR LIVES and it will be regarded and treated as such.  As if you put the gun to our heads yourself and told us to "Register your guns or else get a bullet between the eyes".

Of course all of us on this board know you are too chicken-shit a coward to have the guts to actually try to enforce your stupid idea of registration yourself.  But, you should know that your stupid idea will cause a whole lot of bad to come down on both Patriots and tyrants.

[Texas Yellow Rose]

But no... you can't get next to what we here in Texas call "True Grit".  And you never will.

[Silver Pines]

I just punched up my weather forecast.  Upper 90's.

@Cyber Liberty

Holy cow!  🔥

[thackney]

Registration is about taking responsibility, not deprivation of your rights.  You are legally responsible for the use, transfer and disposition of your firearms.  Do you really disagree with that statement?   Registration is a reasonable tool by which the peaceable community can enforce that responsibility.   

@Jazzhead

I would like to explore this claim.

Let us start with use.  How does registration of a firearm enforce responsible use of a firearm as compared to an unregistered firearm?  What has changed impacting use?

[Jazzhead]

@thackney,  I will try to address your question when I have the time to do so.   

[thackney]

@thackney,  I will try to address your question when I have the time to do so.   

Thanks!

[Restored]

If you buy a gun in a store, it is registered with the state. Have any of you ever bought a gun?

[Cyber Liberty]

If you buy a gun in a store, it is registered with the state. Have any of you ever bought a gun?

What happens when you move out of the state?  It seems to me that data retention policy would change from state to state.

[Restored]

The State as in The Feds. It's part of the background check. When the Virginia Tech gunman shot up the school, the cops immediately knew where he bought the guns because he filed out the paperwork for the background check. The paperwork includes the serial number of the weapon.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks!

I hope he does a better job of it than the time @Meldrew asked that question.  He just repeated the same platitudes about it being our responsibility to be good little citizens, sign zee papers and take the arrows coming our way, as he's been doing this entire thread (and every other one on the subject, come to think about it).

[Cyber Liberty]

The State as in The Feds. It's part of the background check. When the Virginia Tech gunman shot up the school, the cops immediately knew where he bought the guns because he filed out the paperwork for the background check.

The paper form is required to be on file at the gun store for 20 years.  The Feds are prohibited by law to retain the NICS record of the search (my best recollection here).  Of course, we already know how good the Feds are at following their own laws, so there's that...

AFAIK, they retrieved the purchase information of the various shooters by physically locating all the FFL licenses in proximity to the shooting, and actually digging out the forms.  But, how they really do it is secret, so I assume they've broken the law and just go to the database they keep illegally.

[Restored]

Correct. The paperwork is there so it is essentially a registration. Now Jazz can rest easily knowing his plan is in place.

[INVAR]

AFAIK, they retrieved the purchase information of the various shooters by physically locating all the FFL licenses in proximity to the shooting, and actually digging out the forms.  But, how they really do it is secret, so I assume they've broken the law and just go to the database they keep illegally.

Of course they do.  "Laws" are just for us little people.  The government and the reps who enslave us, the courts that pass decrees and the lobbyists who buy them are exempt from any "laws" that inhibit their rule over us.

Which is why anyone that trusts government NOT to abuse mechanisms to 'keep us all safe' such as Jazzy's harebrained registration scheme, are either idiots or lying scumbag tyrants. 

Government and their courts and their agents are the greatest threat and danger to your liberty on the planet aside from morons in the populace who make government their god to abuse you.

[truth_seeker]

When you purchased a gun in a store in 2002 in California, I think they fired a round to keep on file, for forensic purposes. 

[driftdiver]

The paper form is required to be on file at the gun store for 20 years.  The Feds are prohibited by law to retain the NICS record of the search (my best recollection here).  Of course, we already know how good the Feds are at following their own laws, so there's that...

AFAIK, they retrieved the purchase information of the various shooters by physically locating all the FFL licenses in proximity to the shooting, and actually digging out the forms.  But, how they really do it is secret, so I assume they've broken the law and just go to the database they keep illegally.

They would never break the law.   Just like they didn't lie to get warrants or lie to cover up crimes committed by their favorite politician.

Of course they have a database.   They are also using secret govt surveillance for criminal prosecutions.

But since I haven't done anything wrong I don't have anything to worry about. 

[GrouchoTex]

When you purchased a gun in a store in 2002 in California, I think they fired a round to keep on file, for forensic purposes.

Both of my revolvers (purchased in Texas) came that way.
Had a little note in the case from Ruger, along with the spent shell, about test fired for accuracy, etc.
I have no doubt that information on the groove pattern, etc, is on file.

[INVAR]

Both of my revolvers (purchased in Texas) came that way.
Had a little note in the case from Ruger, along with the spent shell, about test fired for accuracy, etc.
I have no doubt that information on the groove pattern, etc, is on file.

It's one reason why purchasing our firearms person-to-person off the back of a pickup truck is the best way to ensure the government and meddlesome tyrants like Jazzhead have no idea what kind of weaponry we possess that they want to confiscate in the near future.

[roamer_1]

It's one reason why purchasing our firearms person-to-person off the back of a pickup truck is the best way to ensure the government and meddlesome tyrants like Jazzhead have no idea what kind of weaponry we possess that they want to confiscate in the near future.

I pass a hone down the barrel when I buy anything. Let em try that against their records.. 

[GtHawk]

I pass a hone down the barrel when I buy anything. Let em try that against their records.. 

I was gonna say, rebarrel, do a little work on the parts of the action that mark the cases and always police your brass if possible.

[roamer_1]

I was gonna say, rebarrel, do a little work on the parts of the action that mark the cases and always police your brass if possible.

Yep...
But the hone works fine... just one pass and its different

[Jazzhead]

I would like to explore this claim.

Let us start with use.  How does registration of a firearm enforce responsible use of a firearm as compared to an unregistered firearm?  What has changed impacting use?

The efficacy of registration upon the safe use of firearms is influenced in part by whether (as is the case with motor vehicles) it is coupled with an insurance requirement.  If we assume that is not the case,  then to me the primary value of registration is that it links a firearm to the person who is legally responsible for its transfer and disposition.   That affects usage in that the legal owner will likely take care to keep the firearm secured against theft, and will inventory his firearms to detect theft and unauthorized usage.   When a firearm is used in a crime, it can traced back to its owner.  At that point,  other aspects of the law determine whether the legal owner is responsible for the harm caused.   If he has documented the transfer of his firearm,  then he is off the legal hook.   If he has reported the theft, then he is (IMO) off the legal hook.

 Obviously,  the state of a local jurisdiction's rules on liability for unauthorized use will play a role.   In the context of motor vehicles,  some states do not hold the owner responsible for unauthorized use of his car, but in other states, in certain circumstances, the owner is deemed responsible especially if has acted irresponsibly (such as leaving the keys in the ignition of an unlocked car).    If linked with an insurance regime,  victims of gun violence (just as the victims of motor vehicle use) can be compensated for medical costs under a no-fault system funded by premiums paid from a broadly-funded pool.   

The liability regime for motor vehicles is obviously different than that for firearms,  and will vary from place to place.   But registration is the tool by which the deadly device (car or gun) is linked to the person with color of legal responsibility,  and effectively compels him to dispose of the device in a documented manner.   

In short, registration is consistent with reasonable notions of owner responsibility.   Confiscation is not the objective, and the Constitution's protections are the means to ensure that.     

[thackney]

The efficacy of registration upon the safe use of firearms is influenced in part by whether (as is the case with motor vehicles) it is coupled with an insurance requirement.  If we assume that is not the case,  then to me the primary value of registration is that it links a firearm to the person who is legally responsible for its transfer and disposition.  That affects usage in that the legal owner will likely take care to keep the firearm secured against theft, and will inventory his firearms to detect theft and unauthorized usage.   When a firearm is used in a crime, it can traced back to its owner.  At that point,  other aspects of the law determine whether the legal owner is responsible for the harm caused.   If he has documented the transfer of his firearm,  then he is off the legal hook.   If he has reported the theft, then he is (IMO) off the legal hook.

Do you really believe that gun owners without registration don't care if their guns are stolen and don't do anything to protect them?

And guilty until proven innocent?  That isn't about use of the gun, but documentation.

 

Obviously,  the state of a local jurisdiction's rules on liability for unauthorized use will play a role.   In the context of motor vehicles,  some states do not hold the owner responsible for unauthorized use of his car, but in other states, in certain circumstances, the owner is deemed responsible especially if has acted irresponsibly (such as leaving the keys in the ignition of an unlocked car).    If linked with an insurance regime,  victims of gun violence (just as the victims of motor vehicle use) can be compensated for medical costs under a no-fault system funded by premiums paid from a broadly-funded pool. 

Are you claiming if someone steals my car, runs over a kid, my insurance would be responsible for paying the kid's medical bills?  I do not believe that is true in any state.

The liability regime for motor vehicles is obviously different than that for firearms,  and will vary from place to place.   But registration is the tool by which the deadly device (car or gun) is linked to the person with color of legal responsibility,  and effectively compels him to dispose of the device in a documented manner.   

In short, registration is consistent with reasonable notions of owner responsibility.   Confiscation is not the objective, and the Constitution's protections are the means to ensure that.

You seem to play both sides of the argument when you claim the Constitution protection prevents confiscation, while at the same time you claim only the Heller decision and not the Constitution provides individual right to own a gun.  Which is it?

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you really believe that gun owners without registration don't care if their guns are stolen and don't do anything to protect them?

That is consistent with everything he's been saying about guns for as long as I've been seeing his posts.  Registration would "incentivize" us to be responsible, as if we aren't already.  It's really rather insulting.

[driftdiver]

That is consistent with everything he's been saying about guns for as long as I've been seeing his posts.  Registration would "incentivize" us to be responsible, as if we aren't already.  It's really rather insulting.

I do protect my firearms.  I lock my house when I leave.

Why should I be responsible for what a criminal does with my property?

[Cyber Liberty]

I do protect my firearms.  I lock my house when I leave.

Why should I be responsible for what a criminal does with my property?

Because they're "Murder Machines."

And they should be taken away from the yahoos who waltz about with them.

[thackney]

I do protect my firearms.  I lock my house when I leave.

Why should I be responsible for what a criminal does with my property?

You would not be.  It is just another ruse to try to justify an unjustifiable position.  It is as if he imagines we leave them on the sidewalk in front of the house while we sleep.

[Jazzhead]

Do you really believe that gun owners without registration don't care if their guns are stolen and don't do anything to protect them? 

Some do, some don't.   The point is there is far more incentive for the owner of a registered gun to report it stolen than the owner of an unregistered and untraceable gun.   

  That isn't about use of the gun, but documentation.

Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners.   It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.   

 

Are you claiming if someone steals my car, runs over a kid, my insurance would be responsible for paying the kid's medical bills?  I do not believe that is true in any state.

It is, in some states.  A couple of weeks ago I posted detailed information about that.   

You seem to play both sides of the argument when you claim the Constitution protection prevents confiscation, while at the same time you claim only the Heller decision and not the Constitution provides individual right to own a gun.  Which is it?

Good question!  Unlike most here,  I am worried that a small change in the SCOTUS's composition could well lead to a ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to own a gun.   As I've explained a number of times, I think the reasoning and logic of the Heller decision provides an alternative basis for that protection - rooted in the Ninth amendment - but my recommendation that Congress take steps to codify that position has not met with favor from those who (naively, in my view) think the 2A is just fine as it is.   

So I'll put the question back to you - do YOU believe the individual RKBA in the Constitution is secure?  If not, why not?  If we both believe it is not secure, what can be done about it?  I've proposed something concrete to fix and secure the right.  What about you?     

[driftdiver]

@thackney

I don't believe they actually think any of their proposals will help.  I don't think they care.

What they do care about is adding anything possible to make it more difficult to legally possess a firearm.  Anything that adds to the hassle, cost, liability is a step towards their utopia of only the govt having firearms.  Well the govt and rich people who can afford private security teams.

Along with this will be the barriers to lawful self-defense.     People in the UK have been prosecuted for using things like bb guns, golf clubs, bats, pens, and knives to defend their lives from criminals.  Not because they went too far but because they hurt the perpetrator.

[Cyber Liberty]

@thackney @driftdiver @INVAR

If ever there was a ball teed up better than this one, I've never seen it.  Here's your 2-wood, this should be good for a few hundred yards down the fairway....

[thackney]

Some do, some don't.   The point is there is far more incentive for the owner of a registered gun to report it stolen than the owner of an unregistered and untraceable gun.

Reporting it stolen does nothing to prevent a crime being used by the stolen weapon.  It isn't about preventing a crime, injury or death; it is about assigning blame without know who actually committed the crime. 

Documentation is helpful to the police by linking guns to their owners.

It does nothing to prevent the crime.

It is hardly a radical notion to ask a citizen to be responsible for the use and safekeeping of the killing devices he/she chooses to own.   

Negligence actions already have a consequence.  Registration does nothing to prove Duty, Breach, Causation or Damages.

 

It is, in some states.  A couple of weeks ago I posted detailed information about that.   

My searching (quick and limited) has shown different results.  I would like to find that info.  I believe it would also require negligence, not the equivalent of someone breaking into my home or garage and taking my property without permission.

 

Good question!  Unlike most here,  I am worried that a small change in the SCOTUS's composition could well lead to a ruling that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to own a gun.   As I've explained a number of times, I think the reasoning and logic of the Heller decision provides an alternative basis for that protection - rooted in the Ninth amendment - but my recommendation that Congress take steps to codify that position has not met with favor from those who (naively, in my view) think the 2A is just fine as it is.

   

Then can we say your claim we are protected against confiscation by the Constitution is false?  Or will you stop making both claims?

 

So I'll put the question back to you - do YOU believe the individual RKBA in the Constitution is secure?  If not, why not?  If we both believe it is not secure, what can be done about it?  I've proposed something concrete to fix and secure the right.  What about you?

I believe it is, but it is impacted by the State Government.  If any federal congressional action is taken, I would want it to use the 2nd Amendment for laws restricting government action on the "shall not be infringed" statement.  Anything else would be an establishment of "reasons for infringement".