So much for focusing on the Economy...

[top gun]

Andy;82450]I'll buy that. The clip was to show general example of government denying the public of their constitutional rights. That said:

It was clear these clips were police actions due to declared emergency situations... and I'm not sure you can ever disobey commands & brandish a handgun around a police officer and not be disarmed.

In Illinois (Obama town), they tried to pass HB2414 which would criminalize the ownership of many popular rifles. People would have 90 days to surrender their property to authorities, and would recieve no compensation for the value of the lost items. If they failed to turn them in, according to their registration, they would have warrants issued for their arrest and could be jailed.

So innocent law-abiding citizens would be jailed, while criminals who of course wouldn't register their fire arms legally, would roam the streets with guns in an ever more defenseless population. Brilliant.

But that did not pass and it is not at all the Bill we are discussing here is it? We are discussing a registration only Bill.

Government abuses citizens far more than other people do. I want them having as little information about me as possible. Further, government is particularly bad at respecting peoples property in regards to this area. It is not needed, it doesn't help, it shouldn't be done.

Well in today's world with it's possibilities of terrorism many things once never really considered as a threat are now a real threat. No one used to think much about bulk fertilizer either... until Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal building.

Yes it has failed. Don't you know anything about the history of other nations? I can't believe you consider yourself informed, and yet don't know how many times registration of guns, and other gun control laws have repeatedly and consistently failed.

Again we're not talking about "banning guns"... we're talking about registering "titeling" guns. Having a paper trail on guns can in some instances help solve crimes and it makes people think twice about what they are getting themselves into when they buy a gun for someone else.

Yes it has failed.... and more than once, or even twice... In fact, registration was used hundreds of times, never once showing a single positive result. Care to prove me wrong? I'd love to see. Might even change my mind. But in New York, registration resulted in confiscation of arms by the authorities, and of course murder rates are so low in New York now.... right?

Less hearsay and empty claims, more support and evidence, ok?

LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS MAKES IT HARDER FOR CRIMINALS AND JUVENILES TO GET GUNS, NEW STUDY SHOWS

States that require mandatory licensing and registration of handguns make it harder for criminals and juveniles to obtain guns from within the state, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for Gun Policy and Research.

The study appears in the September issue of the peer-reviewed journal Injury Prevention and is the first published study to focus on the licensing and registration of firearms. The findings may be particularly relevant for California and other states considering new legislation to require handgun licensing.

Researchers analyzed data on guns recovered from crimes committed in 25 U.S. cities. The study focused on differences in the proportion of the cities' crime guns that were originally sold by in-state gun dealers. The percentage of crime guns sold by in-state gun dealers varied by the state's gun control regime: 84 percent in cities with no licensing or registration requirements; 72 percent in cities in states with either licensing or registration but not both; and only 33 percent where the state required both licensing and registration for handgun purchases. The large difference associated with these gun laws remained after the researchers accounted for other factors related to the state of origin of crime guns.

"A very low proportion of crime guns sold in-state indicates that criminals and juveniles are finding it difficult to obtain guns from local sources. The costs and risks to both buyers and sellers of illegal guns increase when the guns have to cross state borders," explains the study's lead author Daniel Webster, assistant professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research. Supporting this conclusion, the researchers found that cities with a high percentage of crime guns that had been sold by out-of-state gun dealers had relatively low levels of another indicator of gun availability to criminals - the percentage of a state's homicides that involve guns.

Close proximity to people living in states with few restrictions on gun sales increased the proportion of crime guns first sold outside the state. However, study co-author Jon Vernick says, "Although states with weaker gun laws should realize that this can cause gun trafficking to their neighbors, this does not negate the benefits for states that require licensing and registration." Mr. Vernick is assistant professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and co-director of the Center for Gun Policy Research.

In most states with permit-to-purchase licensing systems, prospective handgun purchasers have direct contact with law enforcement agencies that scrutinize the application and some laws require the applicant to be fingerprinted. Registration makes it easier to trace guns used in crime to their most recent owner, and to investigate illegal gun sales. There was significant variation even among the cities in states with licensing and registration laws. The cities where criminals had the greatest reliance on out-of-state guns -- New York, Jersey City, and Boston -- were in states with additional restrictions on guns sales such as allowing law enforcement agencies more discretion to deny applications to purchase handgun, mandatory fingerprinting of applicants, and long waiting periods.

Currently, only seven states have both permit-to-purchase licensing and registration of handgun purchases -- New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, and Hawaii. According to Webster, "our findings suggest that many states that have either registration or licensing but not both (for example, California and Maryland) may benefit by adopting more comprehensive handgun sales laws."

There is a huge difference. Registration of vehicles will not likely result is government abusing the public, the way gun registration routinely has. Also, gun control always results in more crime by hindering the public from defending itself. Finely, automobiles are not a specific right of the people in the constitutional, that our out of control government isn't following.

Why not the government could try to harrass you for speaking out and take your drivers license or car itself... but of course they don't!

Registering a gun doesn't STOP any law abbiding mentally stable person from buying all the guns they want.

And there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says YOU MUST LET EVERY PERSON IN THE INSANE ALYLEM AND EVERY KNOWN BANDIT OWN A GUN!

It actually speaks of a well regulated militia. I read "well regulated" as law abiding and mentally fit individuals.

Registration and sobriety check points are completely unrelated, and thus have nothing to do with your point anyway.

Sure they do. They are a enforced inconvenience to law abiding citizens (not a confiscation of all cars) to help insure the safety of others.

btw, my father was a police officer, and I have a cousin that became the chief of police, plus another that worked as a narcotics officer, and guy that lived behind me was a covert narc officer. I think I know a bit about this as well.

Good... then you know the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies support background checks, registration and often more.

 

[GenSeneca]

That is just one crazy rant.

Don't be so sure, the statists on the right read that and realize how easily they could get around Roe v Wade with such legislation.

Secondly the government couldn't "punish" anyone anymore or less with or without gun registration because they speak out on something. Just as they haven't punished anyone anymore or less because of background checks.

Couldn't ever, or haven't yet? Are you willing to bet the rights of future generations on your assertion that government will always uphold the second amendment and let citizens keep and bear arms? I'm not. When it comes to our rights, I'm not a gambler. I see potential for abuse, your asleep at the switch calling me crazy for trying to wake people up about it.

And I beg to differ with your interpretation of our differences. You want a anti government/anti police lynch mob in the streets, vigilante type mentality. I lean more toward even handed laws that are enforced by professionals.

Nice try, that wasn't what I said at all. Lynch mobs and vigilantes don't do a very good job of protecting our rights and thats the ONLY job I want our government to concern itself with.

Not to say it ALWAYS works out this way in every single case. But I can tell you this I'd rather deal with a police officer in a crises than someone with no real understanding of the law and caught up in the emotion of the situation.

Police have a terrible habit of showing up AFTER a crime has been committed.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on registration... I'd have no problem doing it myself.

You can voluntarily register your firearms, I did so for my home insurance. Its not registration that bothers me, its the license just to own one that stinks of reducing my right to a privilege. I don't have a problem getting my license for concealed carry, but to have one at my house is a whole nother matter.

I've said before I own a Baretta 380...

I just bought a Beretta 84f for concealed carry:

Is this the same Beretta .380 you have or do you have a different one?

I get to go shoot it for the first time Sunday morning. If it shoots anything like my Beretta 92fs, I'll be very happy.

They make a great pair.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82475]
Couldn't ever, or haven't yet? Are you willing to bet the rights of future generations on your assertion that government will always uphold the second amendment and let citizens keep and bear arms? I'm not. When it comes to our rights, I'm not a gambler. I see potential for abuse, your asleep at the switch calling me crazy for trying to wake people up about it.

The only real argument against the 2nd Amendment is if one interprets it as a fundamental right of arms only for a militia... and there is some question on the various possibility of meaning as it relates to commas in certain original period copies.

That said though President Obama (a Constitutional Law Professor) has already stated numerous times he believes the correct interpretation is not just the militia but everybody. So I'm very comfortable at this time.

Nice try, that wasn't what I said at all. Lynch mobs and vigilantes don't do a very good job of protecting our rights and thats the ONLY job I want our government to concern itself with.

Police have a terrible habit of showing up AFTER a crime has been committed.

I call 'em like I read them my friend.

I'd still rather have the police make the call than some random untrained person in God knows what condition at any given time.

You can voluntarily register your firearms, I did so for my home insurance. Its not registration that bothers me, its the license just to own one that stinks of reducing my right to a privilege. I don't have a problem getting my license for concealed carry, but to have one at my house is a whole nother matter.

I don't think it's a big deal at all as long as the fee is not something ridiculous. If it were then that starts going toward suppression.

I just bought a Beretta 84f for concealed carry:

Is this the same Beretta .380 you have or do you have a different one?

I get to go shoot it for the first time Sunday morning. If it shoots anything like my Beretta 92fs, I'll be very happy.

They make a great pair.

Beretta makes a great firearm IMO. And I like the look of yours. Mine is different. Mine is a model 70S. It's single action, blue (black) with black plastic grips. It's a very accurate gun and easy to carry... not that I carry a gun anymore. I did when I owned my body shops and I'd be carrying money to the bank and such.

All of my guns but one are now out at my Aunts farm where I always go if I want to shoot them. The 380 doesn't have all that much knock down power (I'd prefer a full 9mm) but if you "hollow point" it up you can get your point across.

 

[Bunz]

Here are my two latest additions. My plinker, the Springfield Armory XD 45.

Then my home defense gun...

 

[Andy]

It was clear these clips were police actions due to declared emergency situations... and I'm not sure you can ever disobey commands & brandish a handgun around a police officer and not be disarmed.

The clip was of people NOT disobeying commands, and they didn't just get disarmed, they had their property confiscated. Normally if you are a law abiding citizen, the police may ask you to turn over your weapon while they are there, but they give it right back before they leave.

Not have a family heirloom destroyed before your eyes.

But that did not pass and it is not at all the Bill we are discussing here is it? We are discussing a registration only Bill.

Again, as pointed out prior, it doesn't help ANYTHING, and it can only be used by government to abuse citizens.

Well in today's world with it's possibilities of terrorism many things once never really considered as a threat are now a real threat. No one used to think much about bulk fertilizer either... until Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma City Federal building.

Great, let's ban fertilizer, and box cutters, and then small planes, and private cars, and have all your mail searched, and on and on and on... in fact, let's just end freedom completely and get it over with. Weren't you the one claiming the Patriot Act that Obama vote for, was so awful? Look at the logical conclusion of this line of thinking?

Again we're not talking about "banning guns"... we're talking about registering "titeling" guns. Having a paper trail on guns can in some instances help solve crimes and it makes people think twice about what they are getting themselves into when they buy a gun for someone else.

I repeat myself again... try and read it this time...

Gun control has not worked in Canada. Since the new gun registration program started in 1998, the U.S. homicide rate has fallen, but the Canadian rate has increased. The net cost of Canada’s gun registry has surged beyond $1-billion — more than 500 times the amount originally estimated. Despite this, the Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration. Public confidence in the government’s ability to fight crime has also eroded, with one recent survey showing only 17% of voters support the registration program.

So, if this hasn’t worked, what’s the solution? The NDP, which polls indicate may hold the balance of power in Parliament after June 28, has proposed a radical solution: “going across the border to the U.S. and actively engaging in lobbying to have gun -control laws in the U.S. strengthened.”

Registering, or titling, or having a paper trail, or whatever you want to call it... has not, does not, will not, help anything. It can only be used by government to abuse citizens. It does not solve crimes, or prevent crimes, or anything.

LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS MAKES IT HARDER FOR CRIMINALS AND JUVENILES TO GET GUNS, NEW STUDY SHOWS

The cities where criminals had the greatest reliance on out-of-state guns -- New York, Jersey City, and Boston -- were in states with additional restrictions on guns sales such as allowing law enforcement agencies more discretion to deny applications to purchase handgun, mandatory fingerprinting of applicants, and long waiting periods.

Currently, only seven states have both permit-to-purchase licensing and registration of handgun purchases -- New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, and Hawaii. According to Webster, "our findings suggest that many states that have either registration or licensing but not both (for example, California and Maryland) may benefit by adopting more comprehensive handgun sales laws."

Note how they didn't say it stopped them, or prevent a single criminal act. In fact, take a look at those cities with the registrations and restriction. Boston, Jersey City and New York. What is common with all three? Massive criminal activity!

Once again, which is more credible? Your little study where they think it might make it mildly more difficult for criminal, or my article with data from the exact system you support, enacted in Canada, and had no positive effect whatsoever?

Why not the government could try to harrass you for speaking out and take your drivers license or car itself... but of course they don't!

But they HAVE with gun registration. It's not that they might, THEY HAVE with gun registration. And when you look weapons control in history, it's always be abused by government to control and tyrannize citizens. It was used by Soviets against various people groups, by Nazis against the Jews, by Saddam against the Turks, and even by the United States against newly freed blacks. Gun registration was used in New York to go confiscate the only means of defense of the public, in one of the worst criminally active cities in the US.

So you can blaw blaw about how they haven't abused auto registration (yet), but they have abused gun registration, and with this ignorant view, they'll likely do it again. Nothing let's a government go totalitarian more than an ignorant public.

Registering a gun doesn't STOP any law abbiding mentally stable person from buying all the guns they want.

The first step in disarming the public, is figuring out who owns weapons. Registration will be a stepping stone to doing just that.

And there's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says YOU MUST LET EVERY PERSON IN THE INSANE ALYLEM AND EVERY KNOWN BANDIT OWN A GUN!

It actually speaks of a well regulated militia. I read "well regulated" as law abiding and mentally fit individuals.

I read "well regulated" as being what it meant to the founding fathers. Namely every adult male was considered part of the militia by default. Adult back in that time was I think 15 or 16, somewhere around there.

First of all, if we dealt with crime correctly, we wouldn't have to worry much about bandits. Second, I'm more worried about not being able to protect myself, than them getting a weapon.

Why? Because as I have proven many times over, criminals are going to get weapons. You can put a billion policies in place, it's not going to stop a single nut from getting a gun. Like I said before, I can make a gun just from buying parts online. What are you going to do then? Have a five-day wait for metal tubing? For carved wood? How pathetic. And what happens when China starts exporting illegal full-autos into the US, just like they have in Australia?

Maybe you better make a law that illegal arms smugglers must submit background checks for their buyers... I'm sure that'll do the trick.

Sure they do. They are a enforced inconvenience to law abiding citizens (not a confiscation of all cars) to help insure the safety of others.

Sobriety check point isn't a registration that could be used by the government to abuse the public. Nor does it cause the public to be disarmed in the face of the criminal element. They are not the same.

Good... then you know the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies support background checks, registration and often more.

Not around here. In fact, many say they wished more citizens were armed. I wager that nationally that might not be the case. But I've heard storied from police officers of citizens helping them make an arrest cause they were armed. Some stopped rapists because they had a weapon.

More crimes are stopped by armed citizens, than ever are committed by armed criminals.

 

[GenSeneca]

there is some question on the various possibility of meaning as it relates to commas in certain original period copies.

I'll stick with the final draft...

Obama, a Constitutional Law Professor

I'm interested in reading his senior thesis, why do you dodge that question? Please provide me a link to his senior thesis.

President Obama has already stated numerous times he believes the correct interpretation is not just the militia but everybody.

You believe his rhetoric, I'll go by his record:

• 
  [*]Obama: Endorsed Illinois handgun ban.
  [*]Obama: Respects 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans are ok.
  [*]Obama: Concealed carry OK for retired police officers only.
  [*]Obama: Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban.
  [*]Obama: Supports Bans on semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions.

Banning semi-auto's would leave the civilians with single shot, bolt action rifles and revolvers to defend themselves against criminals with semi-auto pistols and assault rifles... not to mention the REAL purpose of the second amendment, to provide citizens with the capability to fight back against a corrupt, tyrannical government, should the need arise...

And don't give me any crap about the SCOTUS ruling, Obama will put anti-gun SCJ's in SCOTUS as soon as he gets the chance and you know this.

I call 'em like I read them my friend.

You need new glasses my friend...

Might be able to trade your stapler for a dictionary as well.

I'd still rather have the police make the call than some random untrained person in God knows what condition at any given time.

Good plan you have there... disarm the civilians so only the criminals have guns... that way the cops can investigate the murder of a civilian rather than haul off a dead criminal.

I don't think it's a big deal at all as long as the fee is not something ridiculous. If it were then that starts going toward suppression.

So you trust our government 100% and you have zero concern about government abusing their power?

Beretta makes a great firearm IMO.

This is something we can agree on all day... I love Beretta's.

And I like the look of yours. Mine is different. Mine is a model 70S. It's single action, blue (black) with black plastic grips.

Good looking gun... too bad they don't still make that model, thats one I'd like to get.

All of my guns but one are now out at my Aunts farm where I always go if I want to shoot them.

Under the proposed law, your aunt would have to get a license to have your guns at her property.

The 380 doesn't have all that much knock down power (I'd prefer a full 9mm) but if you "hollow point" it up you can get your point across.

I was actually shocked... my 84, with the .380, has more kick and a bigger flash than my 9mm 92.

Bunz, Nice guns you have there. Those springfield's aren't cheap and I hear those 460 revolvers kick like a mule.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82747]
I'm interested in reading his senior thesis, why do you dodge that question? Please provide me a link to his senior thesis.

Because I've never read his senior thesis I have no idea what link that would be.

You believe his rhetoric, I'll go by his record:

• 
  [*]Obama: Endorsed Illinois handgun ban.
  [*]Obama: Respects 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans are ok.
  [*]Obama: Concealed carry OK for retired police officers only.
  [*]Obama: Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban.
  [*]Obama: Supports Bans on semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions.

Banning semi-auto's would leave the civilians with single shot, bolt action rifles and revolvers to defend themselves against criminals with semi-auto pistols and assault rifles... not to mention the REAL purpose of the second amendment, to provide citizens with the capability to fight back against a corrupt, tyrannical government, should the need arise...

And don't give me any crap about the SCOTUS ruling, Obama will put anti-gun SCJ's in SCOTUS as soon as he gets the chance and you know this.

On a national level I believe there is no way handguns or hunting weapons will be restricted other than the obvious background checks and possible registration. I would say there is always a possibility of in some way limiting civilian sales of military style assault weapons with high capacity clips (or just not allowing sales or possession of the high capacity clips themselves). But I actually think that's less likely if registration goes through.

Actually that was already in place once before with assault weapon restrictions in place. I could legally own my M1Carbine for instance. I could legally own a 30 banana clip that fit it. But it was illegal to have the 30 round clip in the M1Carbine. So I also had a 15 round clip.

And I do have to bring up SCOTUS. I see no handgun or hunting weapons ban coming there either.

Good plan you have there... disarm the civilians so only the criminals have guns... that way the cops can investigate the murder of a civilian rather than haul off a dead criminal.

I have no problem with mentally stable, law abiding citizens with a background check that are knowledgeable about guns having guns.

I have a REAL problem with citizens thinking they are as competent as and can act as police.

So you trust our government 100% and you have zero concern about government abusing their power?

I have ZERO concern that a gun will ever matter when it comes to citizens rights v. the US government. The government will ALWAYS have such a superior force in it's military that it's citizens with any weapons they could ever legally buy & muster would be taken out in nano seconds.

You'll notice guns weren't used by Blacks to win their Civil Rights struggle. Guns weren't used in the civilian overthrow of the former USSR.

This is something we can agree on all day... I love Beretta's.

Excellent.

Good looking gun... too bad they don't still make that model, thats one I'd like to get.

Thanks... yes it is a nice weapon. Very James Bond like... much like a Walther PPK or PPK/S. I've had mine since the early 80's. I'd probably rather it be double action but it is still a great little model.

Under the proposed law, your aunt would have to get a license to have your guns at her property.

No she wouldn't. As long as there is a titled owner that can be reached that can prove ownership, where the gun is is irrelevant. It's like your car is your car no matter where you park it. However if that gun was used in some illegal way you would be of course questioned... just like if your car was seen at the scene of a robbery.

I was actually shocked... my 84, with the .380, has more kick and a bigger flash than my 9mm 92.

Lighter gun, shorter barrel. The 380 round is actually just a 9mm short.

 

[top gun]

Andy;82743]The clip was of people NOT disobeying commands, and they didn't just get disarmed, they had their property confiscated. Normally if you are a law abiding citizen, the police may ask you to turn over your weapon while they are there, but they give it right back before they leave.

I watched the clip. The old lady for instance was repeatedly arguing and disobeying the officers and then she pulled out a handgun and was disarmed!

Again, as pointed out prior, it doesn't help ANYTHING, and it can only be used by government to abuse citizens.

I'm sorry I don't agree. Their would be some instances where registration would help solve crime.

Great, let's ban fertilizer, and box cutters, and then small planes, and private cars, and have all your mail searched, and on and on and on... in fact, let's just end freedom completely and get it over with. Weren't you the one claiming the Patriot Act that Obama vote for, was so awful? Look at the logical conclusion of this line of thinking?

I'm saying we look at things differently now, we register things more strictly now. Not take them away.

I repeat myself again... try and read it this time...

Registering, or titling, or having a paper trail, or whatever you want to call it... has not, does not, will not, help anything. It can only be used by government to abuse citizens. It does not solve crimes, or prevent crimes, or anything.

The fact is it does work in some case and not in others... BUT IT NEVER HURTS! If gun crime goes up it's because of other factors certainly not because of the fact a weapon has a title... that makes no sense at all.

Note how they didn't say it stopped them, or prevent a single criminal act. In fact, take a look at those cities with the registrations and restriction. Boston, Jersey City and New York. What is common with all three? Massive criminal activity!

Once again, which is more credible? Your little study where they think it might make it mildly more difficult for criminal, or my article with data from the exact system you support, enacted in Canada, and had no positive effect whatsoever?

The study spoke for itself. They conclusivly linked registration to making it more difficult for crimminals. I like that!

The first step in disarming the public, is figuring out who owns weapons. Registration will be a stepping stone to doing just that.

What you just said makes absolutely no difference. If our government wanted to completely take over citizens rights they would have the entire US military with every form of fully automatic weapon from machine guns to LAWs rockets, not to mention every type of light to heavy armor, tanks and a complete AIR FORCE.

You could have every AK47 you could buy and you'd last about... say a minute.

I read "well regulated" as being what it meant to the founding fathers. Namely every adult male was considered part of the militia by default. Adult back in that time was I think 15 or 16, somewhere around there.

That's fine... but it's the WELL REGULATED part that's important not just who's eligible.

First of all, if we dealt with crime correctly, we wouldn't have to worry much about bandits. Second, I'm more worried about not being able to protect myself, than them getting a weapon.

And as long as you have no felony convictions are of age and not a mental case you can. There's no problem here.

Why? Because as I have proven many times over, criminals are going to get weapons. You can put a billion policies in place, it's not going to stop a single nut from getting a gun. Like I said before, I can make a gun just from buying parts online. What are you going to do then? Have a five-day wait for metal tubing? For carved wood? How pathetic. And what happens when China starts exporting illegal full-autos into the US, just like they have in Australia?

Just because people try to find ways around laws don't mean you don't have laws. The idea is that it detours some. And some others are caught before they do damage and they are arrested and taken off the streets.

What you are saying is like saying we should legalize Heroin because people are just going to find and use it anyway. NO!

Sobriety check point isn't a registration that could be used by the government to abuse the public. Nor does it cause the public to be disarmed in the face of the criminal element. They are not the same.

They are not identical... they do have some similar components. Like gun registration it is a slight inconvenience to law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong... in an attempt to help keep the overall public (themselves included) a little safer.

Not around here. In fact, many say they wished more citizens were armed. I wager that nationally that might not be the case. But I've heard storied from police officers of citizens helping them make an arrest cause they were armed. Some stopped rapists because they had a weapon.

I have no idea what town you are in. I'd like to know, tell me?

Also then go look it up, very easy to Google. NATIONALLY the Police Unions and Law Enforcement Agencies OVERWHELMINGLY DO support background checks and various gun restrictions.

 

[Bunz]

Bunz, Nice guns you have there. Those springfield's aren't cheap and I hear those 460 revolvers kick like a mule.

Just my latest few of many. But as for the XDs, they are actually quite affordable. Cheaper than most Berettas, and in the same price range as the Glocks(which I also own one of) but come with a much better accessory package(holster, mag pouches). I paid about $550 for mine brand new. I have a Kimber that I spend twice as much for and dont like nearly as much.

As for the 460, it does pack a punch. But I keep it for 1200lb brown bears and need the force. Also, the ported barrel reduces recoil quite a bit. More than recoil is the noise produced by it. It is LOUD! While I can load it with not only 460s, but also 45colts and 454casull. I practice with the 45s, and keep a load of 300gr 460s in it during the summer time to deal with bears who might want to venture into my smoke house, or even worse a vehicle or into the house directly. The 460 rounds do require a full sized man, and one who knows how to fire a gun properly two handed.
Even with earplugs the concussion and noise is considerable. From what I understand, firing a 460round without earplugs will result (at best) with your ears ringing for the next few DAYS.

 

[Bunz]

TopGun,
Maybe it would be wise to start instead from the verbage in a bill, but instead just suggest a few measures you would want to see in terms attempting to keep guns out of the hands of certain people.

I am curious as to how you feel about the current situation in Alaska. If I want to buy a gun, from a single shot .22 up to a semi-automatic AK47 and AR15, including a Barret 50BMG bolt acton or a 50AE Desert Eagle, it is required that I show a current photo ID, and provide proof of a current physical address. In most cases this is done on a driver's license.
Then I fill out a one page form(4473) it includes my name, address, place of birth, SSN, and a series of questions that must be answered correctly that proves my ability to own a firearm. Included on that form, which by law must be kept for I believe 7 years, is the type, manufacturer, and caliber of the gun being purchased, but most importantly the serial number of that gun.
Then the salesperson, is required to call the FBI and go through the "nics" background check. Which after that is complete will be given one of three answers...
Proceed, meaning I pay for the firearm and walk out the store
Delayed, meaning the sale is obviously delayed and a few days later the sale is either given a proceed ruling...or is
Denied...meaning that this person is not allowed to buy a gun.
If there is a proceed answer, then I walk out the door with that gun after I pay for it. I have managed to get it done in less than 20minutes from me deciding...I want this one.

My point in laying out the process for buying the gun, is that already law abiding citizens have to go through a few layers of background check, and although there is no direct registration, the ATF can fairly easily track down what retailer that gun was sold buy, and who a gun was sold to.

I know some states have put in thier own additional draconian waiting periods and such, but they do squat to actually prevent criminals from getting thier hands on a gun.

 

[GenSeneca]

And I do have to bring up SCOTUS. I see no handgun or hunting weapons ban coming there either.

It was a 5 to 4 decision that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms... Obama will replace 1, 2, or possibly 3 justices and they are guaranteed to be right in line with his Anti-Gun beliefs.

I have a REAL problem with citizens thinking they are as competent as and can act as police.

Try arguing against what I'm arguing for... our right to keep and bear arms, primarily for self-defense. If someone broke into my home, I'm pretty confident I could get to my gun before the police could get to my home. I've never suggested that the citizens should replace the police as vigilante squads, or that a gun makes someone competent to do the job of the police, that's just some strawman BS you've created to more easily argue against what hasn't been suggested.

You'll notice guns weren't used by Blacks to win their Civil Rights struggle.

There were no guns used in the civil war? I seem to recall the need for guns during our civil war to free the slaves, a measure that was necessary before they could have the right to peacefully petition government for a redress of grievances and obtain equal rights.

No she wouldn't. As long as there is a titled owner that can be reached that can prove ownership, where the gun is is irrelevant.

Yes, she would... I can't tell if you know this and are lying, or you don't know this and have decided to just make stuff up....

H.R. 45 Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license.

If its in her possession, she would be required to have a license. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;82944]It was a 5 to 4 decision that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms... Obama will replace 1, 2, or possibly 3 justices and they are guaranteed to be right in line with his Anti-Gun beliefs.

I agree with you on the 2 or 3 Justices... hopefully more.

That said as a gun owner and at one time kind of a collector I am not the least bit worried that law abiding mentally stable Americans would have their right to purchase a gun taken away.

Try arguing against what I'm arguing for... our right to keep and bear arms, primarily for self-defense. If someone broke into my home, I'm pretty confident I could get to my gun before the police could get to my home. I've never suggested that the citizens should replace the police as vigilante squads, or that a gun makes someone competent to do the job of the police, that's just some strawman BS you've created to more easily argue against what hasn't been suggested.

I don't believe we are in disagreement. I'm for gun ownership. And I'm willing to assume you don't want your drunk neighbor enforcing the law.

There were no guns used in the civil war? I seem to recall the need for guns during our civil war to free the slaves, a measure that was necessary before they could have the right to peacefully petition government for a redress of grievances and obtain equal rights.

The Civil War you will recall was a WAR... hence the words CIVIL WAR! It was waged by to two regular ARMIES... not individual citizens rising up with their over the counter purchaced weapons going against a real Army.

Yes, she would... I can't tell if you know this and are lying, or you don't know this and have decided to just make stuff up....

You can obviously have a registered gun and not have in on you or at your property at all times. Registration only means the weapon is titled and supposedly for the use of it's owner.

Now if my Aunt were to USE my guns then that could possibly raise various issues because the guns are not registered to her.

H.R. 45 Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license.

If its in her possession, she would be required to have a license. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

You are putting way too much emphasis on the word possessing. Family on private property could have guns registered to multiple family members on the same family property. But no my Aunt couldn't carry my guns around or move them to another location.

The exposer to registration would be if there were any UNREGISTERED guns out at my Aunts.

I'm simply not worried about this in the least... and I'm sure my 86 year old Aunt shares my total lack of concern.

 

[GenSeneca]

But as for the XDs, they are actually quite affordable. Cheaper than most Berettas, and in the same price range as the Glocks(which I also own one of) but come with a much better accessory package(holster, mag pouches). I paid about $550 for mine brand new.

It does look very "Glock-ish". No doubt $550 is cheaper than most Berettas... I'd like to pick up this bad-mamba-jamba from Springfield:

I have a Kimber that I spend twice as much for and dont like nearly as much.

Kimber prices are ungodly expensive! For the same cost, I'd rather have this set up:

Some new grips for your Kimber might give it more appeal:

As for the 460, it does pack a punch. But I keep it for 1200lb brown bears and need the force.

Thats a sweet looking revolver but...

Who do you think you are defending yourself against bears? Shouldn't you call the police? Its just that kind of vigilantism that makes people think they can replace the police...

 

[Bunz]

Top Gun,
How is it possible to register a gun to multiple family members? You cant register a car to more than one person can you?

Also, this would put a major damper in letting someone borrow a gun. Also, a major hitch in the fact that plenty of kids who wouldnt otherwise be able to buy and register a gun couldnt go hunting.

 

[Bunz]

It does look very "Glock-ish". No doubt $550 is cheaper than most Berettas... I'd like to pick up this bad-mamba-jamba from Springfield:
The next 1911 type I am going to get will be that exact one actually. You have some fine taste in firearms.

Kimber prices are ungodly expensive! For the same cost, I'd rather have this set up:

Dont get me wrong, they make a fine pistol, and a helluva rifle. I shot my buddy's Talkeetna rifle in 375, and I might have to get one when I can find a stash of 2grand around the house. I have the goldmatch II, I have a pair of ivory grips for it but dont currently have them on it. I am kinda saving the grips as an heirloom, because probably like guns, the legal ownership of ivory will probably go away someday.

Some new grips for your Kimber might give it more appeal:

Now that is cool. My ivories have the Alaska state flag scrimshawed into them, and are quite handsome, but those grips just look tough.

Thats a sweet looking revolver but...

Who do you think you are defending yourself against bears? Shouldn't you call the police? Its just that kind of vigilantism that makes people think they can replace the police...

I didnt buy it so much for looks as I did for the big hole it puts into things, and the ability to soft load it with 454s, and 45s. As for the bears, not to much concern this time of year because they are sleeping. But in the fall, they become a real nuisance and there has been plenty of destroyed property and pets killed by marauding bears. As for dealing with the cops, its pretty routine. They see a collapsed smoke house and a summer's worth of catch potentially ruined and a simple statement and they are back to other stuff.