The_Patriot21 Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 27 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,718 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,535 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted April 18, 2013 thats because people have fought them off to date rejected. Whats it going to take it prove it to you, actual confiscation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment. Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? Not all states require permits. While the federal government guarantees the right to bear arms, which no state can violate, it is up to the individual states to require permits or not, to exercise that right, and some state do not require permits of any kind. The question then becomes, if the feds were to require a criminal background check, how long are those records kept? That is how long the feds would be able to know who legally owned guns. Person-to-person transfers were to be excluded under the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, which would have made tracking impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,799 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Those differences are rapidly shrinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted April 18, 2013 its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment. Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? If you think that its ridiculous, then you really need to re-examine history. Have the existing gun regulations proven to be the first steps to confiscation? Nope. FYI: * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. http://uofe.org/gun_confiscation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 thats because people have fought them off to date rejected. Whats it going to take it prove it to you, actual confiscation? If there is ever any evidence that it's being considered, I'll join in the Tea Pary protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Those differences are rapidly shrinking. Capitalism was alive and well, last I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinky Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 200 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,602 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 291 Days Won: 8 Joined: 10/24/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/01/1986 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Ask yourself: Is the United States heading toward a Marxist/Socialist system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 its the first step to complete confiscation rejected, first off, second, its none of the governments business. The second ammendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms-not the right only keep and bear arms that the government knows about. Seeing as the second amendment was put there, as a fail safe in case the government falls to tyranny, the government knowing where the guns are so they can confiscate them, kinda defeats the entire purpose of the second amendment. Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? If you think that its ridiculous, then you really need to re-examine history. Have the existing gun regulations proven to be the first steps to confiscation? Nope. FYI: * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. http://uofe.org/gun_confiscation.html How do any of those compare with the US, in terms of a political for doing so? Keeping in mind that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve such thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RejectedStone Posted April 18, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 40 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/03/1980 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But, I know he won't give up on his pursuit of the destruction of the US Constitution, so we have to challenge him every time he tries to undermine/usurp it. How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Ask yourself: Is the United States heading toward a Marxist/Socialist system? Absolutely, positively not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts