Fake "Gun Rights" Group Supports Gun Control - American Rifle & Pistol Assn

[JSH1]

In New Orleans they certainly did use gun shop records (the safest possible form of registry) to aid in the illegal confiscation of guns. California currently uses it's registry to confiscate guns from those it deems prohibited as well as to confiscate guns that were banned after they were registered. New York will almost certainly use it's registry to confiscate guns from those who fail to re-register as required under their new law.

With New Orleans I assume you are referring to Katrina. I know the police confiscated any firearms they found. I've seen no evidence that they used gun records to actively go door to door and collect weapons.

California uses their gun registry to confiscate weapons from prohibited persons. Do you have a problem with this? I personally think removing weapons from those who are prohibited from owning them is a good idea. As, to confiscating guns after bans, I'm not aware of any guns bans in California that don't include a grandfather clause.

New York. So you don't know of any actually confiscations but you predict that they will in the future.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

JSH1, I don't plan on wasting a lot of time talking to anyone who thinks registration is reasonable. Especially one who takes the attitude that whatever the Court says must be OK. The Court said you could lock American citizens in internment camps if they were of Japanese ancestry. The Court said slavery is not only A-OK; but you have to give back slaves that escape. Sadly, not every decision of the Supreme Court upholds individual liberty.

This is particularly relevant with guns. As it stands now, the Supreme Court has ruled you have an individual right to keep a loaded .22LR revolver in your home for self defense and that applies to state laws as well. Every other aspect of the gun debate remains untouched by the Supreme Court. Until the Second Amendment is treated like the fundamental civil right that it is, all registration does is set people up for the big scam of registering their weapons only to be told by a later Court that THOSE weapons are not protected under the Second Amendment.

As others have already pointed out, registration has been used to enforce bans and even confiscation. New York demanded registration of assault weapons and then used that registration to enforce a ban. California registered so-called "assault weapons" and then told the owners "Oops, our bad. You registered too late - and then confiscated legally purchased weapons from citizens who had made every effort to comply with registration.

Meanwhile, our neighbor to the North actually repealed their firearms registration scheme because it was a gigantic waste of money and few complied with it. Which as it turns out, is not an uncommon experience with firearms registration.

Did you just blow past example after example after example of double-dealing and lies in the past from the very same people proposing this background check?

Here are a few links both you and Mitlov could benefit from reading:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html (Pay particular part to the "Registration Leading to Confiscation in Democratic Societies part - though you should already be familiar with it given your fondness for citing Australian gun law).

 

[happygeek]

Why don't I fear a gun registry? I don't believe the government has any interest in going door to door confiscating guns.

That's kind of the whole point of a registry, so that in the future they won't have to confiscate. Considering that you can't require a prohibited person to register a firearm that they may or may not have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States) and can't prosecute them for not registering, exactly what good is a registry?

Sen Hughes was kind enough to answer that question for me at the national level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_Gun_Ban) and Chicago answered that question at the local level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago#Cause).

The trick is to require registration in the name of "common sense". Once the system is set up they can start tweaking it by requiring renewel every 3 years, raising the fee, etc. By raising the fee and constantly adding to the paperwork hassle they can trim the ranks of the legal gun owners until they're a small enough minority that when the time is right to close the registry there's no longer a critical mass of legal owners to fight it. Since they've already made it a crime to possess an un-registered firearm, by closing the registry they compel legal owners to come to them and turn the guns in. By setting the renewel period at 3 years they ensure that not all legal owners are coming in at the same time, it'll be in ones and twos as their registration expires.

We've seen this method before in other countries. It takes patience, cunning, and a long term plan on the part of the anti-gunners, but from what I've seen of the Brady Campaign/CSGV/VPC/MAIG to say nothing of Sen Feinstein type politicians they have no shortage of those traits.

On a sidenote, I found the references to National Socialists interesting. I've read a lot of books about WWII, but I still had to look up Jürgen Stroop and Hans Kammler.

 

[Black Butte]

As, to confiscating guns after bans, I'm not aware of any guns bans in California that don't include a grandfather clause.

The ban that took SKS rifles away from law-abiding citizens that complied with California's compulsory registration and believed the state government when it lied and said it was only interested in registration and not confiscation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Some more reading from this year's headlines:

Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/its-hawaiis-proposed-guns-laws-that-are-criminal/123

New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-exposes-gun-confiscation-agenda-of-Democrats

Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-contr...irearms-gives-gun-owners-90-days-turn-weapons

VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/15/va-targeting-veterans-for-gun-confiscation/

NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/15/va-targeting-veterans-for-gun-confiscation/


I've got to tell you - that gun banning fringe minority of yours seems well-ensconced in the various legislatures and bureaucracies.

 

[jstein650]

JSH1: "Why don't I fear a gun registry? I don't believe the government has any interest in going door to door confiscating guns."
Your not 'believing this' obviously has no relation to the fact that they do, as is illustrated below.

"I'm not aware of this happening in the United States even though individual states have kept registries for decades. Please correct me if I am wrong. A registry does not lead to bans."
You have been corrected, and you are wrong.


"A registry could only be used to confiscate guns if a ban made those guns illegal. If tomorrow a law is passes making my pistol illegal I will turn it in as required."
Now, after much discussion pointing out the very real reality that this not only can, but has happened, you're OK with it, since, after all, anything that is legislated is OK. It is the LEGISLATION of bad law that we are trying to oppose.


P.S.: As has been suggested by the moderators and a good number of folks, I am willing to let this thread die. JSH1 and Mitlov aren't really interested in engaging in meaningful debate. They are either flaccid plants, or, some seriously fat dumb and happy, and painfully naive, slack jawed gun owners that haven't made their way around the block yet. Maybe one day...

To EVERYONE: My God, people like Mitlov and JSH1 actually vote. I believe it's our job to make sure to minimize their efforts.

"...you are referring to Katrina. I know the police confiscated any firearms they found. I've seen no evidence that they used gun records to actively go door to door and collect weapons..."

It DID happen. The fact you weren't around to see the evidence is irrelevant.


"..California uses their gun registry to confiscate weapons from prohibited persons..."

Are you a 'prohibited' person? Are you sure? Have you ever been prescribed an antidepressant? An anti anxiety med? Delinquent on taxes? Maybe ever voted Republican? Member of a TEA party?

You are a fool at best and a subversive at worst if you hope to convince me that 'legislation' somehow = good law.

 

[Field Tester]

It's not just the American Government that scares me, and trust me they terrify me. What about an invading force?
The Germans did it to the Belgans in WWII. They took their National Registry and went to each home to round up all firearms. If you didn't produce you were jailed or shot. Hell we just did it to the Iraqies. We went door to door taking anything over 1 rifle per home.
You just choose not to see how it can and has been used.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

New York City required registration of military style rifles ("assault weapons") and some time later informed registered owners that they had a deadline to move the guns out of the city or face penalties.

Under the 1924-1975 Racial Integrity and Sterilization Acts of Virginia, some of my mother's familys' surnames were placed on the assumed racially impure list, prompting migration to Tennessee. Trust Big Brother? Has Hades frozen over yet?

When I need a reminder of the gun control mindset, I replay the news videos I downloaded during the aftermath of Katerina: my Windows Media Player Playlist: NOLa

Sources include:
ABC News
CNN
Channel 2 San Francisco

 time source filename         subject
 2:05 ABC abcnews.mpeg        early general evacuation order
 2:15 Ch2 CHP1.asx            deployment of California Highway Patrol
 2:54 CNN ForcedEvacCNN.wmv   forced evacuation, arms confiscation
 3.28 Ch2 CHP2.asx            CHP v Patricia Konie
 2:56 Ch2 SuperDome.asx       government approved shelter

In particular "early general evacuation order" 8 Sep 2005 ABC News: evacuate "w/o using force" shows police and national guard house-to-house with guns includng M4s drawn w. orders to take guns from residents (not just guns they found). NOPD police chief: "No one will be allowed to be armed."

And "CHPs v Patricia Konie" in her home on high and dry Magazine St. with her stockpiled food, water, meds, pets and a revolver and a knife for protection; the elderly woman refuses to leave, CHPs body slam her against the wall, drag her out with a dislocated shoulder to be taken to an evacuation center.

Channel 2 SF based newscaster and reporter in NO La:

Q:"It is obvious they will use physical force to remove someone who does not want to go, the obvious question now is would they use deadly force?"

A:"Well, I don't think so, Dennis. I mean here you had a woman with a gun. She's elderly, she does not appear to be a threat but a gun is a gun and officers certainly have the option you would think in using deadly force. They're not kicking down doors. They're not dragging people from their homes, but in this case the woman had a gun so that is a bit of a different scenario."

That's after showing video of California Highway Patrol sworn as special Louisiana deputies dragging Kronie from her home in New Orleans.

 

[Deanimator]

Why don't I fear a gun registry? I don't believe the government has any interest in going door to door confiscating guns.

They had an interest in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

I'm not aware of this happening in the United States even though individual states have kept registries for decades.

You're not "aware of"... HURRICANE KATRINA???

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong.

A registry does not lead to bans.

How did Chicago implement it's HANDGUN BAN?

You're either shockingly uninformed or despicably dishonest.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Let us clarify: a registry does not automatically lead to a ban, but it is the best way to facilitate a ban.

As far as a registry being of use to law enforcement, New Zealand (1983) and Canada (2012) abolished their long gun registries as having little or no social utility and diverting funds from more productive law enforcement policies.

Compromise on a policy against the law-abiding that doesn't do any good in controlling bad behavior, our antis comeback with more of the same: that is the poison in that well.

 

[Shadow 7D]

ON the federal level...

Consider Machineguns (oh wait, are we on this again...)
Yes, Machine guns, that I think EVERYBODY should be able to own...

First they made a registry and charged an massive (for the time) fee to register them...
THEN
over 50 years later...
some dickhead realized he didn't have to ban them, he didn't have to do some major bill with lots of hand wringing...

He simply, in 2 sentences, made all FUTURE machine-guns illegal (outside of few government... exemptions) and tossed it as a poison pill.
On this date, registry CLOSED... no more machineguns, WHAT... say, if you can't register them, well....

So. do I think it's hunky dory...

 

[JSH1]

As far as a registry being of use to law enforcement, New Zealand (1983) and Canada (2012) abolished their long gun registries as having little or no social utility and diverting funds from more productive law enforcement policies.

I'll have to look into the New Zealand registry but the eliminated of the Canadian ban happened when the conservatives came to power. Considering they had been against the registry from the beginning I would say that was a political decision not a financial one. That is only reinforced by the decision to not allow Quebec to keep the data. Instead if they want a registry they will have to start from scratch. Again, doesn't sound like a financial decision.

In particular "early general evacuation order" 8 Sep 2005 ABC News: evacuate "w/o using force" shows police and national guard house-to-house with guns includng M4s drawn w. orders to take guns from residents (not just guns they found). NOPD police chief: "No one will be allowed to be armed."

Police were going door to door enforcing a mandatory evacuation ban. They did disarm any civilian they found with a gun. They did not go door to door specifically collecting weapons. How do I know? They only collected about 1000 guns. That is a number consistent with seizing weapons from people, not going door to door collecting all weapons. People that complied with the evacuation order had no worry about having their weapons seized. I think many mistakes were made during Katrina but there is no evidence that a door to door collection of weapons happened.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

^ So since conservatives were in power and ended the Canadian registry, the decision was not made on social utility cost/benefit analysis, it was conservative politics. Two can play that game: Quebec clinging to a failed policy was liberal politics in action.

The ABC News coverage showed men handcuffed outside their high and dry homes, who were allowed to return to their homes without their guns. This was not "mandatory evacuation" if all the authorities did was take their guns and let them stay in their homes. And people evacuated by the authorities were not allowed to be armed; so much for evacuees keeping their guns.

8 Sep 2005 New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass ordered local police, National Guard and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian guns: "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." It is in the ABC News coverage. Guns were confiscated and not all owers were given receipts for their guns.

After refusing to admit that it had any seized firearms, the city revealed in mid-March that it did have a cache of some 1000 firearms seized after the hurricane; this disclosure came after the NRA filed a motion in court to hold the city in contempt for failure to comply with the U.S. District Court's earlier order to return all seized firearms. On April 14, 2006, it was announced that the city will begin to return seized firearms, however as of early 2008, many firearms were still in police possession, and the matter was still in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critic...ane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms

 

[HOOfan_1]

That is for the courts to decide.

No it isn't. It is for the people to decide.
That is the problem with our government since pretty much 1789...they forget that the ultimate authority resides with the people

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They only collected about 1000 guns.

So, if less than 4 people died, not including the shooter, it isn't a mass shooting regardless of how many people were shot AND if less than 1000 guns were confiscated by police from law-abiding citizens who had a legal right to own them, it isn't confiscation. Got it. How long have we been at war with Eurasia again?

 

[Torian]

I'll have to look into the New Zealand registry but the eliminated of the Canadian ban happened when the conservatives came to power. Considering they had been against the registry from the beginning I would say that was a political decision not a financial one. That is only reinforced by the decision to not allow Quebec to keep the data. Instead if they want a registry they will have to start from scratch. Again, doesn't sound like a financial decision.



Police were going door to door enforcing a mandatory evacuation ban. They did disarm any civilian they found with a gun. They did not go door to door specifically collecting weapons. How do I know? They only collected about 1000 guns. That is a number consistent with seizing weapons from people, not going door to door collecting all weapons. People that complied with the evacuation order had no worry about having their weapons seized. I think many mistakes were made during Katrina but there is no evidence that a door to door collection of weapons happened.

I'm going to go out on a ledge here:

I've been reading through your posts since you joined this forum, and I'm starting to believe that you are nothing more than a plant to stir the pot at THR.

Nothing you've posted is indicative of "honestly" supporting the 2nd amendment in its entirety.

I'd rather know your true intentions if this is the case, because then your arguments would start making a whole lot more sense to the rest of us.

 

[SuperNaut]

I'll have to look into the New Zealand registry but the eliminated of the Canadian ban happened when the conservatives came to power. Considering they had been against the registry from the beginning I would say that was a political decision not a financial one. That is only reinforced by the decision to not allow Quebec to keep the data. Instead if they want a registry they will have to start from scratch. Again, doesn't sound like a financial decision.

It doesn't have to be only one reason, it can be many. With that said, the cost overruns are mind-boggling. You can make a superficial argument that the repeal of the registry was based upon on ideology, but the astronomical cost and the registry's negligible impact on crime is undeniable.

Estimated cost per annum: $2 million

Actual cost per annum: $66.4 million,

Total estimated cost of implementation: $2 billion

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmmm, I wonder if there are any other programs that would be more effective in reducing crime and cheaper than $2 billion + $66.4 million annually to implement?

 

[HOOfan_1]

Nothing you've posted is indicative of "honestly" supporting the 2nd amendment in its entirety.

Same goes for the group mentioned in the OP.

Sure some group may say they want to offer an alternative to the NRA, they may even refrain from lobbying against Universal Background checks...but only a false flag group would actively support something like that.

 

[JSH1]

So, if less than 4 people died, not including the shooter, it isn't a mass shooting regardless of how many people were shot AND if less than 1000 guns were confiscated by police from law-abiding citizens who had a legal right to own them, it isn't confiscation. Got it. How long have we been at war with Eurasia again?

If the police where using a gun registry to go door to door and collect all the guns in the city, they would have seized far more than 1000 guns. I don't claim that law enforcement didn't seize guns, I'm saying their is no proof that they were using gun records to do so.

8 Sep 2005 New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass ordered local police, National Guard and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian guns: "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." It is in the ABC News coverage. Guns were confiscated and not all owers were given receipts for their guns

Your point? Again, nothing that proves or even hints that law enforcement was using gun records to seize guns.

And people evacuated by the authorities were not allowed to be armed; so much for evacuees keeping their guns

• If you left on your own as required before the storm, you could keep anything you took with you including firearms
• If you went to the Superdome you were not allowed to bring your firearms inside
• If you stayed in your home and were evacuated after the storm (willingly or forcibly) you did not get to keep your firearms.

Does that sound about right? Can we agree on this much?

 

[zxcvbob]

I can't believe folks are still debating with someone who is being willfully-ignorant. Just sharpening your skills? Be careful, he (they) are probably just trying to draw out a juicy quote that can be taken out of context.

 

[Ryanxia]

I'm going to go out on a ledge here:

I've been reading through your posts since you joined this forum, and I'm starting to believe that you are nothing more than a plant to stir the pot at THR.

Nothing you've posted is indicative of "honestly" supporting the 2nd amendment in its entirety.

I'd rather know your true intentions if this is the case, because then your arguments would start making a whole lot more sense to the rest of us.

I sent a message to the moderators earlier, pretty sure he's an anti. He was pushing a fake pro-gun organization in another thread.

 

[JSH1]

I'm going to go out on a ledge here:

I've been reading through your posts since you joined this forum, and I'm starting to believe that you are nothing more than a plant to stir the pot at THR.

Nothing you've posted is indicative of "honestly" supporting the 2nd amendment in its entirety.

I'd rather know your true intentions if this is the case, because then your arguments would start making a whole lot more sense to the rest of us.

Really? This again?

No, I am not a plant. Yes, I own guns, I went to the range yesterday to try out the new barrel on my shotgun. I have purchased 4 guns in the past year due to a renewed interest in shooting after a 13 year break. I actively shot and hunted in my teens and was also a NRA member and supported their position at the time. Now a decade later after more life experience and quite a bit of world travel I don't. I would like to find a national organization that supports my views. I'm not interested in groups like Mayors Against Gun Violence because they seem fixated on assault weapons bans and other ineffective methods.

It is obvious that my opinion is not shared by many here on THR. That does not make it any less valid or mean that I'm part of some shadow movement. I would say my opinion of background checks is supported by the majority of the public and the majority of gun owners. At least it is in my circle of friends and co-workers here in Alabama. I don't here worries of universal background checks leading to confiscation from the gun owners that I personally know, if fact they think they are a good idea. If you got outside of the echo chamber you may meet some people like me.

As some said earlier, people like me do vote. I not only vote, (in the Republican primary) but I also call my representatives, and donate money. Gun issues are not even close to being on the top of my list of priorities but they do factor in.

 

[Art Eatman]

JSH1, with a registry, "they" don't have to bother with a door-to-door thing. They just send a letter saying, "Bring it in." If you don't obey, a warrant issues for your arrest. Speak Sayonara, boy-san. There will then be a search warrant for your residence, and the history of such searches shows a high percentage of serious property damage--without apology or redress. History, not opinion.

Regardless, the appropriate goal--and the only goal--is the reduction of violent crime wherein a firearm is used. All else is window dressing.

Even if background checks and registration "don't hurt anything", they will not and cannot reduce such crimes. This has been shown beyond all doubt and argument in many countries for many decades.

So why bother passing a law which creates any sort of hassle for honest citizens? Why would you be cooperative in adding useless hassle into your life?

I note that all the laws passed during the past forty-seven years, and adding registration to them, would not have prevented Charles Whitman's escapade. Nor would registration have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre.

IOW, quit peeing in my whiskey.

 

[Sentryau2]

Really? Just really?

IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. Why is that so hard to understand? The polls were worded to make it sound like either you supported expanded background checks or you were a terrible person who wanted criminals to have guns. I find many people and groups using this same tactic and it never gets any less childish. Just to throw this out there germany forced a registration and look where that got them. "it will never happen here" and I'm betting you said the same thing about the wire tapping and survailence of law abiding citizen. This is america folks and it WILL happen here if we let it. I will be able to vote come october and afterwards I will fight tooth and nail to refuse ANY legislation regarding gun control, unless it is to lessen it. I would LOVE to see the ban on the production of MGs removed (select fire ar-15 anyone?) and along with it the limit on barrel lengths instead of 16inches down to 12inches. (how could we work together to get the nfa MG ban on productions and sbr laws changed?)

Regarding new Orleans it dosent matter if they used a registry or not, it shows they were willing to confiscate the guns of honest people. They were adults if they chose not to leave it was THEIR choice NOT the government they were adults capable of taking care of themselves. You can bet that if they would have had easy access to a registry they would have used it, and any registry is easy access to the federal government. They have already proven they will use hidden courts with rubber stamp search warrants to circumvent the constitution, they have proven that they will ignore the constitution and do what they please if we let them.

I'm 17 and I can see how much the world changed after 9/11, it saddens me to think america is becoming a nation full of cowardice. To give up freedom ANY freedom simply because you want a little temporary safety is unacceptable. I would rather die in an explosion on a plane, in a building or on a bus then to walk through metal detectors and body scanners along with enhanced pat downs every time I wanted into a building. This is no longer JUST about the second amendment this is about all our rights, not just Democrats or republicans.

We will have to watch our backs because of groups like this. It shows us that they are willing to lie and misrepresent themselves to push their agenda. Don't ever trust any politician/group or bill being passed without looking over it through a microscope.