|
VitalSigns posted:They're not? "Violate the 4th to also violate the 2nd!" - A man who doesn't understand or care about people's rights
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Skar posted:"Violate the 4th to also violate the 2nd!" "But I'm not going to actually try to use the 2nd to defend the fourth, because the government might hurt me legally"  Oh wait, you were the Nazi apologist weren't you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I like how Liquid Communism slips in unrestricted "long guns" to make the case that registration is useless because Canada eliminated it for one type of unrestricted firearm. Of course Canada still requires registration for handguns and semiautomatics. Not to jump down your throat, but your wrong about semi autos being registered in Canada. All pistols are registered in the class called "restricted" and while some semi auto's (all AR15 are restricted) are restricted they tend to be named or under the 18.6 required barrel length, there are a ton of non registered legal semi autos in Canada. The registration in 2001 took 18-21 months to get your registration paper work "completed" and cost us nearly a billion dollars for a nation of less than 40 million people oh and during that time if the police had any reason to look at your firearm (ie you had your house broken into and they where searching the house) and they found the unregistered gun there was a possibility of jail time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We already established that it's not cosmically incapable of prosecuting strawbuys, the government has been deliberately crippled in its ability to do so by people like you. I'd buy your line of reasoning if they tried and failed. But I'm not just going to accept on faith their righteousness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Church posted:Not to jump down your throat, but your wrong about semi autos being registered in Canada. All pistols are registered in the class called "restricted" and while some semi auto's (all AR15 are restricted) are restricted they tend to be named or under the 18.6 required barrel length, there are a ton of non registered legal semi autos in Canada. The registration in 2001 took 18-21 months to get your registration paper work "completed" and cost us nearly a billion dollars for a nation of less than 40 million people oh and during that time if the police had any reason to look at your firearm (ie you had your house broken into and they where searching the house) and they found the unregistered gun there was a possibility of jail time. So do what is legally required to keep a firearm? I mean, they kinda tell you what the legal requirements are, and if you failed to satisfy them, that's somehow the government's fault? I mean, we have DOT inspections for cars in many state's in the US, is it somehow the person who fails to maintain their car if they fail DOT and possibly lose their ability to drive said car, or the Government's fault?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Skar posted:"Violate the 4th to also violate the 2nd!" Huh? I'm not advocating violating either, registries are constitutional and states have them already. But lol if you think a future tyrannical state that scrapped the Bill of Rights and is coming to take your guns and put you in a FEMA camp is going to respect the fourth or be deterred by "hello officer, maybe I have guns and maybe I don't, I'm not telling!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
How dare I fail to meet the legal expectations of keeping a deadly, regulated tool. drat you, big government!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:So crippled that they can't even try, even with a confession. My heart bleeds for the noble federal lawyer. Can you cite this case. And your thesis is the DoJ is reluctant to prosecute difficult cases, therefore let's keep straw buyers arbitrarily difficult to prosecute? wtf
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Huh? I'm not advocating violating either, registries are constitutional and states have them already. Absolutely. I'm just going to post videos of the end of the Waco siege for anyone still fuzzy on what this looks like. If the government wants to take your poo poo, they will. Your gun ain't stopping them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So....you don't want to be a responsible gun owner? You just want to imply you are a responsible and safe gun owner, but oh no, you might not be! Main Paineframe posted:Uh, why wouldn't you want the police involved in investigating the theft of your property? They'd have to come to your house to write up the police report, check for signs of forced entry, and whatnot. quote:Hell, many of the reporting requirements people are arguing against in this thread are already in place for FFL holders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:DV restraining orders already include a ban on the restrained individual possessing firearms. Also, the basis for issuing a restraining order is not "in the public interest." quote:The problem is that there are not any factors, aside from the obvious ones we already have laws for like "threatens to kill people" or "beats their partner", which don't have an unacceptably high false positive rate. Plenty of people are socially isolated (Vegas, VT, Columbine) or fundamentalist Muslim (Orlando, San Bernardino) without flying off the handle and killing a whole lot of people. Tythas posted:lets go even further with guns and talk about ATF's operation Fast and Furious in which the ATF purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them except they failed.... Badly Flowers For Algeria posted:Why the hell would anyone oppose gun registration? There is literally no downside to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't want to be a gun owner at all, I'm just a person who acknowledges people who don't want to interact with the police exist for both nefarious (they are guilty of other crimes they don't want discovered) or very good (they are not white and fear the police shooting them) reasons. If you're proposing a strategy that involves "force people to interact with the police, or they are guilty of a crime" you need to account for these people. If you don't want to interract with the police AFTER you've been robbed, what good are the police? And if you are incapable of taking responsibility for your deadly tools and telling the police "I believe I've been robbed and I had a gun that's been stolen" why even call them? I guess gun owner's just shouldn't report any personal property crime at all? And what about Domestic Violence victims? Should they just fear to report their partner because the police my take their partner's firearm? This is a really stupid logic path. GWBBQ posted:A data breach would put large numbers of people at risk for home invasion or burglary. There's a reason safes are rated on how long it takes to break into them, and people who rent or lease can't just bolt them down to the floor. If accessible to law enforcement, every person of color who legally owns a gun will be in the same situation as Philando Castille if they get pulled over. Every warrant served to a household where a gun owner lives or frequents will become a no-knock raid. Again: This isn't going to stop them if they are just planning on rounding up firearms. And not having a registry is not going to solve the racism behind police action against minorities, c'mon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can you cite this case. Police are always pushing for more power because their jobs are just so hard and nobody understands and they just need this one more thing. Well gently caress 'em. The ATF is notorious even among LEOs for being comically incompetent. If they want more power they should demonstrated they are responsible and effective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Police are always pushing for more power because their jobs are just so hard and nobody understands and they just need this one more thing. Well gently caress 'em. The ATF is notorious even among LEOs for being comically incompetent. If they want more power they should demonstrated they are responsible and effective. From the guys who argue people shouldn't report firearms theft because they may have been bought under the table. "I demand responsibility from the US Government, but not from firearms owners"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:what good are the police?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't want to be a gun owner at all, I'm just a person who acknowledges people who don't want to interact with the police exist for both nefarious (they are guilty of other crimes they don't want discovered) or very good (they are not white and fear the police shooting them) reasons. If you're proposing a strategy that involves "force people to interact with the police, or they are guilty of a crime" you need to account for these people. Sometimes you have to interact with officials for the greater public good, this does not mean that we shouldn't reform hosed up processes, but "okay new sovcit government" is not the solution. twodot posted:See above. "you've been victimized, now we are forcing you to interact with the police" should have obvious problems. Don't we have reporting requirements for crimes already. Should caregivers not be required to report child abuse because the police might want to talk to the victim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you don't want to interract with the police AFTER you've been robbed, what good are the police? quote:And if you are incapable of taking responsibility for your deadly tools and telling the police "I believe I've been robbed and I had a gun that's been stolen" why even call them? I guess gun owner's just shouldn't report any personal property crime at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No loving good at all if you're not lily white. You sound like a guy who's never called the cops.  That wasn't your argument, but thanks for trying to play the "But I'm really just concerned about minorities" card.Rent-A-Cop posted:A controversial position apparently. That's a laugh coming from "But the owner might have bought the firearm through less than legal means" Man, you guys sure love pushing responsibility on everyone but yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I'll dig it up when I'm not phone posting. My thesis is that the DoJ has not demonstrated a good faith effort to enforce current gun laws, so I am reluctant to support sweeping new legislation on the sole reason that they might decide to enforce it. This is literally the GOP playbook. *purposely breaks a government function* "The government is useless, we don't need more laws, we need less government!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Just because it's in the topic and why not, remember that the Columbine shooters got their poo poo from a straw purchase, at least the double barrel + the pump-action they both sawed down and the 9mm carbine anyway. (Last one was the tec-9 which they bought off a pizza shop employee  )
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Skar posted:"Violate the 4th to also violate the 2nd!" Also doesn't understand the 5th, given that 'I owned this illegally, so attempting to register it would be self-incrimination' is a valid defense for non-registry as per Haynes v. US. That's why criminals having unregistered guns aren't prosecuted for registration violations now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"But I'm not going to actually try to use the 2nd to defend the fourth, because the government might hurt me legally" No, I'm not. But helldumping people doesn't really help your case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Also doesn't understand the 5th, given that 'I owned this illegally, so attempting to register it would be self-incrimination' is a valid defense for non-registry as per Haynes v. US. Soooo....are you arguing there's no purpose on laws because some people shouldn't have to follow them? "Let's go after straw purchases, but man its gonna be easy to get around legally." In this thread: Laws don't work, but they do work, and people are not required to be responsible with firearms, but everyone else had better have some damned personal responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
God forbid I expect more of a multibillion dollar federal agency than of assorted hicks. Truly I am a dreamer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:God forbid I expect more of a multibillion dollar federal agency than of assorted hicks. "Responsible Gun Owners" or "Assorted Hicks" I wonder what makes the difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Also doesn't understand the 5th, given that 'I owned this illegally, so attempting to register it would be self-incrimination' is a valid defense for non-registry as per Haynes v. US. The purpose of a registry isn't to charge criminals with possessing an unregistered firearm, ya dingus. It's to enable us to trace the firearm and find out how they got it, if they got it illegally we charge them for that and if that illegal acquisition was an illegal sale then we charge the guy who sold it to them for that crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Responsible Gun Owners" or "Assorted Hicks" One gives the NRA money the other gives the NRA money
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So do what is legally required to keep a firearm? I mean, they kinda tell you what the legal requirements are, and if you failed to satisfy them, that's somehow the government's fault? Alot of people did register their firearms, however during that waiting period the government is making because they poorly made new laws made "paper criminals" out thousands of Canadians, it cost us nearly a billion dollars, and the RCMP said "it in no way was really helpful in fighting crime". I understand your concern but the DOT inspections isn't an analogy that works the way you think it does its more like this : The state government of california passes a law that says "every car has to be inspected and meet the DOT requirements period even if you driving it on your own personal land ". After this law is put in place the state you take your car down the DOT to have it inspected and they tell you "oh that's going to be 2 years from now before we can look at that for you". So you sigh and take your car back home and park it knowing its going to take 18-19 months to get it looked at. Now during this time period if the police come to your property for unrelated issues (ie your not driving the car) and they police look at your car and notice it hasnt been inspected, you could spend 4 years in jail for having an "illegal car". Also this new system was told to you to cost 2 million ends up costing a billion dollars a year. Does that make a little more sense now ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:God forbid I expect more of a multibillion dollar federal agency than of assorted hicks. Dude you're smarter than this, we've already established the problem is existing law which the gun lobby won't let us change, not American Exceptionalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Responsible Gun Owners" or "Assorted Hicks"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Church posted:I understand your concern but the DOT inspections isn't an analogy that works the way you think it does its more like this : Here's the problem: A waiting period is perfectly fine for a firearm. Not for a necessary daily transport. The analogy breaks down there. You know your legal responsibilities, and ignorance or procrastination is not the Government's fault: Its yours. If I fail to pay my taxes on time, do I blame the government or myself? Rent-A-Cop posted:The responsible gun owner is a myth. Like the innocent politician or the honest cop. Huh, then what are you arguing for again? But also: No, I do believe many people are perfectly capable of keeping firearms safely and also probably not afraid to report them stolen if they are stolen or lost, because they don't have some tinfoil conspiracy about the government and cops coming to round them up, and probably didn't purchase the firearm using some shady under the table deal, which they are not supposed to be doing anyways. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Church posted:Alot of people did register their firearms, however during that waiting period the government is making because they poorly made new laws made "paper criminals" out thousands of Canadians, it cost us nearly a billion dollars, and the RCMP said "it in no way was really helpful in fighting crime". Do you have a citation for any of this, all I can find is dubious letters-to-the-editor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Dude you're smarter than this, we've already established the problem is existing law which the gun lobby won't let us change, not American Exceptionalism. No one cares though because gun owners hate the ATF and nobody else even remembers it exists except when it's loving up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:No, you've claimed that and I disagree. I have no idea where American exceptionalism came in. This isn't an America problem it's a problem with government mismanagement of priorities. I expect if anyone cared it wouldn't be difficult to fix. You suspect wrong, I already gave you two citations of the federal government trying to pass laws against straw purchasing which were torpedoed by the NRA, because the only thing the gun industry sees when they look at a straw purchase is profit margin. But of course when the NRA torpedoes any attempt to fix the problem, naturally you blame the people making the effort to fix it for "not caring enough", and not the people actively preventing anything from being done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Here's the problem: A waiting period is perfectly fine for a firearm. Not for a necessary daily transport. The analogy breaks down there. I would agree CommieGIR posted:Here's the problem: A waiting period is perfectly fine for a firearm. Not for a necessary daily transport. The analogy breaks down there. I know your arguing from a good place here and I'm really not trying to be a jerk, but your missing a key thing here: This isn't a requirement to "GET" a firearm, this is a requirement "AFTER the FACT". How am I being negligent if the law changes for am item I legally own and I attempt to comply with the law and the government tells me its going to be 19 months before they can do anything ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Church posted:I would agree In theory we can write laws that don't have this problem, so this sounds to me like an argument that we as gun owners should take the lead in writing such a law so unintended consequences like this don't happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:In theory we can write laws that don't have this problem, so this sounds to me like an argument that we as gun owners should take the lead in writing such a law so unintended consequences like this don't happen. I would agree with that 100% and would recommend the GOA (gun owners of america) or some one who isnt cartoonishly evil like the NRA work with law makers to write better laws. Despite ally my gripes the gun laws in Canada (could use some tweeking) but for the most part work and keep our country alot safer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you have a citation for any of this, all I can find is dubious letters-to-the-editor. Still looking for research on this, the only reason I mentioned those times frames is it what was told me when i went to register my uncles rifle he left to me in 2002 and the rcmp basically told me to gently caress off and wait 18-21 months. The registry died before my "paper work" was ever looked at, and due to it being a non-resticted firearm nothing changed for me and it still in my safe to this day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Church posted:Still looking for research on this, the only reason I mentioned those times frames is it what was told me when i went to register my uncles rifle he left to me in 2002 and the rcmp basically told me to gently caress off and wait 18-21 months. The registry died before my "paper work" was ever looked at, and due to it being a non-resticted firearm nothing changed for me and it still in my safe to this day. I mean the part where people were charged with failing to register their weapon before the registry even opened, that's the part that sounds to me like FWD:FWD:FWD:FWD:stdh.txt Also yall still have a registry for semiautos and handguns which is exactly what I'd like to see here, I don't care too much about grandpappy's breech-loading deer rifle or w/e since those are rarely used in crimes or mass shootings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:06
|
|