Federal Firearms Registry and 4473's

[purplehaze]

I am with you... however, it allows the government to add to the list at their whim ie adding a misdemeanor domestic a&B. if it stopped at felonies i wouldnt have a problem but it hasnt. A constitutional right isnt determined by whether i like it or not or whether the goverment likes it or not.

No, I wasn't saying that at all.
I thought a "right" was something that was automatic.

Now that you bring it up....
For a minute let's just forget the things like abuses of the system, incompetence, discrimination....let's pretend they don't exist.
Under those circumstances, does anyone feel that screening potential buyers specifically for violent criminal history & mental illness would be a reasonable step to take?
I'm not talking about scrutinizing people to the Nth degree over a fistfight they had when they were young or having taken anti-depressants, I'm talking about cases where there have been convictions or unvoluntary commitments.(let's say it'd really work that way)
Does that seem unreasonable?

 

[omegis13]

They'll sell it as a ban on civilian ownership of "military weapons", but the definition of a "military weapon" will be "any weapon which has been procured by the military, and any weapon which is based on any weapon procured by the military". So... no guns or knives with one Act of Congress.

What I realistically fear is that Congress will pass a ban on "military calibers" which has been a standing law in many nations in Europe and much of Central and South America. It would definitely be a much smaller step than banning "military weapons", though similarly effective. I guess it will give the market the encouragement it needs to make a .46 ACP.

 

[MLR]

What I realistically fear is that Congress will pass a ban on "military calibers" which has been a standing law in many nations in Europe and much of Central and South America. It would definitely be a much smaller step than banning "military weapons", though similarly effective. I guess it will give the market the encouragement it needs to make a .46 ACP.

I'm not so sure it would be a smaller step. Many of the popular sporting calibers we use today are or were used by military forces. Even if you accept that and say its ok to ban military calibers, how do we get aroung the fact that we are supposed to be a MILITIA? Read the Federalist papers and see what the founding fathers thought about a citizen militia.

"Shall NOT be infringed!"

Michael

 

[omegis13]

I'm not so sure it would be a smaller step. Many of the popular sporting calibers we use today are or were used by military forces. Even if you accept that and say its ok to ban military calibers, how do we get aroung the fact that we are supposed to be a MILITIA? Read the Federalist papers and see what the founding fathers thought about a citizen militia.

"Shall NOT be infringed!"

Michael

I definitely agree. Perhaps I should rephrase what I said. Basically, in the eyes of the non-gun-owning public, banning "military calibers" would probably be considered a smaller step, not realizing exactly what "military calibers" are nor how common their use in sporting, self defense, and hunting is.

 

[TunnelRat]

The majority of people that don't know or care much about guns in general think all guns referred to as AK-47's are fully automatic and the assault weapons ban was a ban on machine guns. I've explained to several ignorant people the assault weapons ban only to have them go "oh...well that was stupid!" after at first saying "well why do people need machine guns?"

Shall not be infringed meant that... the line was drawn in the sand there. That line has been trampled long ago...in fact, so long ago and so much since that it's pretty much been seen as acceptable precedent.

 

[Flyboy]

Under those circumstances, does anyone feel that screening potential buyers specifically for violent criminal history & mental illness would be a reasonable step to take?

No, I do not believe it is reasonable. If the buyer is dangerous, he should still be in prison. If he has paid his debt to society, then the debt is paid. You don't get to say "yeah, you served your time, but we're going to keep you on the list as a sub-citizen."

 

[okie shooter]

No, I do not believe it is reasonable. If the buyer is dangerous, he should still be in prison. If he has paid his debt to society, then the debt is paid. You don't get to say "yeah, you served your time, but we're going to keep you on the list as a sub-citizen."

But we do keep rights from those convicted of many crimes. Remember you used to lose the right to vote, if convicted of a felony and even dishonrable discharge from the army, and there are other examples of your "freedoms" if you feel they are such being restricted. Remember we all have basic rights, but some are and maybe should be restricted for past trangressions.

That said thus in some opnions any one who serves the crime gets the full faith and credit of the goverment, why do we force sexual offenders to not have freedom to live where they want, or where they want. They paid their debt to society, thus according to many they should be scot free right. Well I guess society feels the need to restrict those above who fulfill their pentance to society. Thus yes in my opnion you do allow society to make some limits to restrict those who have had past issues.

The largest group of folks who lose gun owning rights proably now is actually folks treated in the system, precieved or otherwise, as abusers in family situations. Thus the society feels those who commit those crimes, cannot own firearms, and that goes up to the federal level.

Just points to ruminate over and think about when you feel everyone no matter what should still be able to buy and own firearms.

 

[shootinpreacher48]

Flyboy i agree, if someone has paid the debt then who am i to take away as the decleration and Constitution and Bill of Rights says UNALIENABLE RIGHTS away.

 

[omegis13]

But we do keep rights from those convicted of many crimes. Remember you used to lose the right to vote, if convicted of a felony and even dishonrable discharge from the army, and there are other examples of your "freedoms" if you feel they are such being restricted. Remember we all have basic rights, but some are and maybe should be restricted for past trangressions.

That said thus in some opnions any one who serves the crime gets the full faith and credit of the goverment, why do we force sexual offenders to not have freedom to live where they want, or where they want. They paid their debt to society, thus according to many they should be scot free right. Well I guess society feels the need to restrict those above who fulfill their pentance to society. Thus yes in my opnion you do allow society to make some limits to restrict those who have had past issues.

The largest group of folks who lose gun owning rights proably now is actually folks treated in the system, precieved or otherwise, as abusers in family situations. Thus the society feels those who commit those crimes, cannot own firearms, and that goes up to the federal level.

Just points to ruminate over and think about when you feel everyone no matter what should still be able to buy and own firearms.

I get what you're saying man, but honestly, I don't believe we should allow the government to "strip" rights from people due to their past history. Maybe make prison sentences and fines MUCH longer/higher? Absolutely. But the idea the government can "take away" the rights of the people for whatever reason strongly suggests that the government is who doles out rights. If some person/body/organization has this kind of power, then the people never had "rights" to begin with, merely permissions. It's this mentality of "I'm doing it for the good of the children/society/(whatever 'noble' cause here) so it's okay to trample the rights of others" bit that is causing our nation to have as many problems as it is. Some things just aren't up for debate/discussion/vote/compromise/sale, and I tend to think my rights are one of them.

 

[TunnelRat]

I get what you're saying man, but honestly, I don't believe we should allow the government to "strip" rights from people due to their past history. Maybe make prison sentences and fines MUCH longer/higher? Absolutely. But the idea the government can "take away" the rights of the people for whatever reason strongly suggests that the government is who doles out rights. If some person/body/organization has this kind of power, then the people never had "rights" to begin with, merely permissions. It's this mentality of "I'm doing it for the good of the children/society/(whatever 'noble' cause here) so it's okay to trample the rights of others" bit that is causing our nation to have as many problems as it is. Some things just aren't up for debate/discussion/vote/compromise/sale, and I tend to think my rights are one of them.