Gun Registration?

[Gisteppo]

AA, we all have common ground. Its just infrequent that we try to find it. Everyone always seems to argue points instead of finding the middle.

E

[swedefish4life1]

Female, Male, bird dog or angler you push with me and mine your a backstop with talent.
One of my best buds daughters a fighting killing machine when needed:cheers: and a growing talent with the rod=fishing that is:chef:

[kutthroatkilla]

Guns guns and more guns...I love it...haha...so much so...check this wondeful clip out...guns are fun to collect too! Favorite Movie and scene of all time...always will be man...



hHV6OzHjWV8

ENFlOj6Wl8k&NR=1

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

you still have the criminals that are going to break all kinds of laws because that's what they do. Are you telling me that a felon is going to say, "I can't use this gun in a crime because I'm not properly licensed"? Give me a break. The firearms are always going to be out there whether they're legal or not. Maybe if we strictly enforced the laws that already exist we wouldn't need any more new laws.

This is a common argument but it falls a little short because it supposes a few things that aren't necessarily the case.

Yup, there will never be a cessation of the black market for guns. Regardless of what we do, they will always exist. The object isn't to deter felons from owning the guns, it is to put more responsibility on the hands of the original gun owner.


It isn't going to stop the weapons, it is designed to create accountability where some people feel they don't need to be accountable.

E

OK so,,,, you want responsible gun owners to be MORE responsible??

This is exactly what I was going to say. Legislate against responsible gun owners and not work the problem which is enforcing laws against criminal activity.

One must ask themselves....why is there more problems with guns and gangs now than there was in the 50's/60's... Answer that and you will have a clue about which group to pass more laws for. Enforcement is a joke these days compared to what it was in the 50's and 60's.

One more thing. I grew up in a small town and still read that local newspaper. One thing I complained about whenever I visited was "it was like going back 40 years in time back there". Well...reading that local newspaper I see a town that enforces gun laws, drug laws, etc. Reading the Seattle Times about what goes on in Seattle... I see mollycoddling of criminals.

[Gisteppo]

Enforcement is an interesting place to point the finger. I thought it was relatively self-explanatory, but apparently it isn't.

Say a felon goes to a gun shop. He attempts to purchase a handgun. Due to Wa state law, he is unable to because he is a convicted felon. Great, the law works. The next week there is a gun show. Said felon goes to the gun show and finds the exact same weapon sitting on the table. He asks to purchase the gun, at which point the seller says "here you go". Poof, felon with a gun.

By adding serial tracking to the weapon, the dealer or owner becomes involved in the possession string of the gun. He will have a very intensely vested interest in whom he will be selling the gun to. The felon will be FAR less likely to have access to the gun when the seller stands a chance at breaking the law directly.

Because of the incessant desire NOT to pay taxes, people have inadvertently cut Policing in double digit percentages over the past decade. Do you remember voting for I-695 and I-747? If you voted yes on either or both, YOU PERSONALLY are responsible for reducing the numbers and efficacy of police on the street day in and day out. Shift strength in Spokane suffered by about 20% for each shift. That translates to 3 less officers per shift per area in our fair city, increasing the workload to a point where unless it is a major crime, it can't be attended to for hours, sometimes days. This type of offense (searching for weapons and managing the criminals brandishing them) is very low tier because of the pending call load, sometimes approaching 25+ waiting callers.

This is the same argument on illegal aliens. Chasing them all around the US is a futile endeavor when people won't pay for the enforcement through taxes. Instead of going after the people looking for the easy money in the US, you go after the EMPLOYER who is screwing the Americans because he won't pay minimum wage and taxes. He is the culprit because he is making it lucrative to cross the border and break the law.

Remember that it isn't just the benevolence of the sellers, there are plenty willing to make a buck without concern for where the gun goes. Though you, the reader, may be a safe gun owner, there are many who are not. This type of law will do nothing to violate your rights or limit your ownership. It is merely a tracking device.

E

[tmusky1]

Enforcement is an interesting place to point the finger. I thought it was relatively self-explanatory, but apparently it isn't.

Say a felon goes to a gun shop. He attempts to purchase a handgun. Due to Wa state law, he is unable to because he is a convicted felon. Great, the law works. The next week there is a gun show. Said felon goes to the gun show and finds the exact same weapon sitting on the table. He asks to purchase the gun, at which point the seller says "here you go". Poof, felon with a gun.

By adding serial tracking to the weapon, the dealer or owner becomes involved in the possession string of the gun. He will have a very intensely vested interest in whom he will be selling the gun to. The felon will be FAR less likely to have access to the gun when the seller stands a chance at breaking the law directly.

Because of the incessant desire NOT to pay taxes, people have inadvertently cut Policing in double digit percentages over the past decade. Do you remember voting for I-695 and I-747? If you voted yes on either or both, YOU PERSONALLY are responsible for reducing the numbers and efficacy of police on the street day in and day out. Shift strength in Spokane suffered by about 20% for each shift. That translates to 3 less officers per shift per area in our fair city, increasing the workload to a point where unless it is a major crime, it can't be attended to for hours, sometimes days. This type of offense (searching for weapons and managing the criminals brandishing them) is very low tier because of the pending call load, sometimes approaching 25+ waiting callers.

This is the same argument on illegal aliens. Chasing them all around the US is a futile endeavor when people won't pay for the enforcement through taxes. Instead of going after the people looking for the easy money in the US, you go after the EMPLOYER who is screwing the Americans because he won't pay minimum wage and taxes. He is the culprit because he is making it lucrative to cross the border and break the law.

Remember that it isn't just the benevolence of the sellers, there are plenty willing to make a buck without concern for where the gun goes. Though you, the reader, may be a safe gun owner, there are many who are not. This type of law will do nothing to violate your rights or limit your ownership. It is merely a tracking device.

E

Well obviously that felon didn't learn his lesson the first time around.

Don't worry folks, as long as you pay an extra useless tax,it won't affect your right to own. The government just needs to know EVERY SINGLE THING about you. Don't worry they just want to track your guns. What could possibly be wrong with that?
When are we going to get a sarcastic smilie?

[Gisteppo]

Do I bring up the fact that the people opposing this idea are the same ones that gave carte blanche to the government in the Patriot Act because they had "nothing to hide"?

E

[ndn]

Say a felon goes to a gun shop. He attempts to purchase a handgun. Due to Wa state law, he is unable to because he is a convicted felon. Great, the law works. The next week there is a gun show. Said felon goes to the gun show and finds the exact same weapon sitting on the table. He asks to purchase the gun, at which point the seller says "here you go". Poof, felon with a gun.

E

Why not simply close the gun show loop hole by requiring unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to perform the instant check required by licensed gun sellers?
Some States ,including Oregon,have done this,Washington State has not. Why not?

[Gisteppo]

ndn, I think thats a fantastic idea.

You and I are in 100% agreement on this.

E

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

Do I bring up the fact that the people opposing this idea are the same ones that gave carte blanche to the government in the Patriot Act because they had "nothing to hide"?

E

I am guilty of that as that describes me.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

Say a felon goes to a gun shop. He attempts to purchase a handgun. Due to Wa state law, he is unable to because he is a convicted felon. Great, the law works. The next week there is a gun show. Said felon goes to the gun show and finds the exact same weapon sitting on the table. He asks to purchase the gun, at which point the seller says "here you go". Poof, felon with a gun.

E

Why not simply close the gun show loop hole by requiring unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to perform the instant check required by licensed gun sellers?
Some States ,including Oregon,have done this,Washington State has not. Why not?

ndn, why don't you go to a local gun show and buy a firearm. You'll understand things better if you did.

One thing you'd find out is you'd either need a concealed weapons permit or a FBI background check to be certified as able to buy a firearm.

So the "loophole" you are talking about doesn't exist. (even though it hasn't been closed)

[Gisteppo]

While I agree that INSIDE the gun show this is the case, its the backdoor and parking lot dealings that are the issue Zen.

E

[Anglinarcher]

Gentlemen, I think that this thread has been on pause long enough. I think that everyone can see, in an ideal world, where more regulation, more control, would be a good thing. I still contend that security is not Freedom, and removing freedom for a promise of security is a false promise.

I received the following just recently. My initial research shows it to be accurate. Most importantly, this is what I fear for us. I believe that the message is unquestionable.

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION

"... it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."

--Samuel Adams

[G-Man]

Unfortunately folks that are pro gun control have new poster boy for their propaganda machine. If you haven't yet seen the headlines, someone has stormed a building in Binghamton, N.Y. and killed more than a dozen people. It's shocking and it's tragic, could it have happened with gun control laws in place, probably. The first reports stated that the gunman wielded a rifle, later reports do not mention weapon type. The thing that will totally be missed is that a disgruntled or mentally unstable person, if motivated, can and will kill many people using whatever means possible. Explosives regularly replace guns in many of the massacres you see outside of the United States. We are humans, we know how to make and use tools, who remembers Oklahoma City? As unfortunate and tragic as an event like this is, it will happen again and again and again. With the number of people we have living so close to one another all it takes is just one person in 10+ million to be whacked out of their mind enough to carry out something like this.

As for home defense, I'm totally flabbergasted when a person is prosecuted for injuring or killing someone that invades their home. What gets me is that we should be laughing off the story AA posted as an April Fools tale. Unfortunately we live in a time when many laws, including our own, defy common sense and no one seems to have the guts to challenge them. The scenario from England could very well have happened in the US and had a similar outcome. Depending on where in the US this had taken place, could you not envision the home owner being jailed for his actions? Even if he was not charged or convicted of a crime, you'd better believe he'd be brought to court for a wrongful death suit. What do you think the chances are that he would have had to cough up money to the surviving family members?

Can't we all just get along? Until that happens, humans will continue to kill one another with whatever means are available, gun control is not the solution.

[Anglinarcher]

G-Man, I think that is the point. People with limited access to information are killing dozens, even hundreds, around the world with Improvised Explosive Devices. In our country, you can get the recipe off the INTERNET. I have been trained by Uncle Sam, so I am not a good example, but I could blow up a city block with what I can carry out of a grocery store.

If the Press would not give these people the "immortality" of news coverage, then the desire to "go out with a bang" would be lessened. Nevertheless, they, press, do, they will, and if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

For me the issue boils down to do we trade freedom for false security. Right now, with gun crimes aside, I know that the Spokane City Police often tell people that suffer property crimes that they are too busy to investigate. File a report and call your insurance agent. They are not too busy to bust us for speeding, or improper use of child seats, of jay walking, but they are.......................... You get the point. If you call 911 for a burglary in progress, trust me, they will not respond in time to save your life - they would need to have officers posted on every street corner.

For us to believe that we can trade in our guns for security, we must ourselves be on drugs.

[flippinfool]

AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY!

[Anonymous]

[Gisteppo]

Sorry it has taken me a while to get to this, Ive been working my normal 48 hrs a week on shift and an extra 40+hrs a week on cabinets for the house.

AA, while I can see what point you are trying to make, we all know that it isn't the case in the US. Gun laws don't even begin to cover the plethora of caselaw that supports self defense, home protection, and using weapons against criminals in the act of felonies. Gun control laws would only dictate how the gun was licensed. Even now if you were in the stated situation with an unregistered firearm, they would only have the legal authority to poke you with an unregistered weapon, a minor misdemeanor that the DA would overlook.

It would take a serious act of congress to bring a wrongful death suit in a B&E case. If you shot someone for trespassing, yes, there would be some legal room to go after the shooter, but B&E (the go-to case that most gun rights advocates use) would not result in wrongful death. At worst you might even get a second offense of discharge of a firearm in city limits or some such excitement.

For me the issue boils down to do we trade freedom for false security. Right now, with gun crimes aside, I know that the Spokane City Police often tell people that suffer property crimes that they are too busy to investigate. File a report and call your insurance agent. They are not too busy to bust us for speeding, or improper use of child seats, of jay walking, but they are.......................... You get the point. If you call 911 for a burglary in progress, trust me, they will not respond in time to save your life - they would need to have officers posted on every street corner.

Now that I take exception to.

Property crimes are a paperwork show. They have dedicated reserves that handle the reports you file with the city, but a uniformed officer does not need to come and listen to your story.

Traffic tickets are handled by a specific unit. They are 100% traffic cops, their job is to keep you safe. I don't like getting tickets either, but don't drive like an ass and you won't get cited.

Jaywalking? Name ONE person who has been nicked for jaywalking that you know. I happen to know one, but the jaywalking was just a good way to get to know one another before he was nicked for public drunkenness, the real offense.

I can tell you that 90% of the time if you call in a B&E, you are 3 minutes from a black and white sitting a block away and a man with a gun standing on your porch. The other 10% you can think Tim Eyeman for, as he is responsible for a 10% reduction in on-duty staffing.

I believe in personal protection, but don't point the finger at an underfunded department that is working its ass off to keep up with the load of work slathered on them. If you EVER have any misgivings of what a cop does, go on a ridealong. SPD offers them to anyone, anywhere, anytime, just show up.

E

[Anglinarcher]

Gisteppo, we will never ever be able to fund the police force sufficiently to protect us to the extent we need. They can't in Great Britain and they tax at rates much higher then we do. As for property crimes, it may seem like it is "a paperwork show" to you, but for some of us that have suffered property crimes, it is a kick in the groin, twice, once by the criminal and once by the police that don't even investigate.

So, how far are we away from the British model? I warn you, and every one else, not far enough. One radical president, and we have him, can lay the groundwork for just such an event. Listen to what the joker is telling Europe about how Americans are the bad people, arrogant even, and that he is sorry for all of our wrongs. Funny, we saved Europe twice after they failed to prepare to and later defend themselves. We had a president that tried to do it again, but failed to garner the full support he needed. BUT WE are arrogant! WE ARE NOT THAT FAR AWAY FROM THE BRITISH MODEL.

One thing that legal rulings give us is that they mean nothing to a court that wants to change legal history. One or two more liberal Supreme Court Justices, and our goose is cooked. Most of the other courts are so overloaded with those that would legislate from the bench that it is already a sad day in our history.

By the way, I can sue you because I don't like the color of your eyes. There is no law to prevent a wrongful death suit.

And one last question, do you even trust the police we have hired to protect us? I know that Gisteppo will need to say yes, I believe his job precludes a true 1st amendment response in this case. Nevertheless, riddle me this Batman - have we not had two extremely questionable happenings just recently in Spokane with our police force.? One apparently drunk shooting a guy in the head for stealing his truck, but he covered up most of the information, even when the other police showed up. And what is this about one flashing his badge to get out of a speeding ticket, and was he also the one caught prowling around the neighbors at night?

I repeat the quote I gave before from Thomas Jefferson, those who beat their guns into plow shears will plow for those that don't. Apparently the ones that didn't in GB are the criminals.

[Gisteppo]

As for property crimes, it may seem like it is "a paperwork show" to you, but for some of us that have suffered property crimes, it is a kick in the groin, twice, once by the criminal and once by the police that don't even investigate.

I have had theft occur in my home as well. Im not diminishing the crime, Im telling you what police work is entailed. Its purely paperwork on the police end that starts with indexing what you have lost, and during the course of other law enforcement, they hope to match your losses up with things seized in raids and after arrests.

And one last question, do you even trust the police we have hired to protect us? I know that Gisteppo will need to say yes, I believe his job precludes a true 1st amendment response in this case. Nevertheless, riddle me this Batman - have we not had two extremely questionable happenings just recently in Spokane with our police force.? One apparently drunk shooting a guy in the head for stealing his truck, but he covered up most of the information, even when the other police showed up. And what is this about one flashing his badge to get out of a speeding ticket, and was he also the one caught prowling around the neighbors at night?

I trust the majority of police that we are served by. In this thread everyone has made sure to make a distinction that its the few bad apples that own guns and use them harmfully that taint the whole of gun ownership. Using that same logic, I have to say that most police take their jobs seriously and do a good job of it.

On the outskirts are individuals like Jay Olson who was a terrible cop to begin with, and made several horrible mistakes for which he lost his job. I never trusted him in the first place. Another situation is the Otto Zehm issue, which having responded on calls on Otto before, I can 100% attest to his extremely aggressive behavior. He could be a serious handful, and has caused harm to police and fire responders in the past. I think errors were made, and I don't agree with how its handled, but he was dangerous.

By using that argument about not trusting the police, you fall into the same trap that any commie leftist does when they say all gun owners are bad. Be careful you don't set two standards with the same words.

E