Clinton suggests she'd consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ‘confiscation’

[2aguy]

the first thing isis does when it conquers a territory

is start gun control policy

Repent or die: al-Qaeda forces announce rules for Iraqi territory they now control

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

OK....now tell me what to do with the crazies? People with mental issues are more often than not major offenders. I repeat....what is wrong with a thorough cross checking examination and a 45 day waiting period?

Name one mass shooter that we have had that would have been stopped by a 45 day waiting period....research has shown mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance....well over your 45 day period....

mentally ill shooters are a timy number of all shooters.....amd the best way to catch them is with mental jphealth professionals....but......the colorado theater shooter and the sandy hook shooter both had contact with mental health professionals...didn't stop them.

cross checking examinations only work for those who submit to them...if criminals steal their guns and use people who can pass any examination to buy their guns for them...you can see why they don't work to stop criminals and mass shooters.

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

it is probably unconstitutional to require a felon to use the background system

it certainly is unconstitutional to require a felon to register a firearm

Support that last statement, please

it is probably unconstitutional to require a felon to use the background system

it certainly is unconstitutional to require a felon to register a firearm

---------------
Support that last statement, please

The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration


The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration


by Clayton Cramer


A recurring question that we are asked, not only by gun control advocates, but even by a number of gun owners is, "What's wrong with mandatory gun registration?" Usually by the time we finish telling them about the Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Haynes (1968), they are laughing -- and they understand our objection to registration.

In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. [1] His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon." [2] The Court concluded:

• 
  We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851. [3]

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it. [4]

Consider a law that requires registration of firearms: a convicted felon can not be convicted for failing to register a gun, because it is illegal under Federal law for a felon to possess a firearm; but a person who can legally own a gun, and fails to register it, can be punished.

In short, the person at whom, one presumes, such a registration law is aimed, is the one who cannot be punished, and yet, the person at whom such a registration law is not principally aimed (i.e., the law-abiding person), can be punished.

 

[Stephanie]

How wonderful would that be. You would paying yourself for the gun you turn over to the Guberment that you paid for when you bought them.

that Hillary is so dang smart

 

[2aguy]

ISIS doesn't start gun control policies, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

that is how gun control works

No, it's not. it's how a totalitarian organization works. Not the same thing. If you think so, well then I guess you live in one as you aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons.

If you think so, well then I guess you live in one as you aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons.

Actually, you can.

Just have to do an even more in depth background check, get a special license, have a place to secure it, and agree to inspections that you are following the rules.

a multiple convicted felon was caught in New York with a fully automatic rifle.......gun grabber laws do not work...

and in Europe...with gun confiscation and extreme gun control laws...their criminals get fully automatic rifles easily.

plus hand grenades and rpgs

In Sweden, their gangs were throwing grenades at each other all summer long...but we didn't hear about that over here....

 

[jon_berzerk]

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

it is probably unconstitutional to require a felon to use the background system

it certainly is unconstitutional to require a felon to register a firearm

Support that last statement, please

Haynes v. United States


In a 7-1 decision the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes

the court held that it was unconstitutional under the 5th amendment

a felon could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration

 

[Sally Vater]

Two phrases in our constitution that lefties hate: "free exercise thereof" and "shall not be infringed".

 

[2aguy]

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

it is probably unconstitutional to require a felon to use the background system

it certainly is unconstitutional to require a felon to register a firearm

Support that last statement, please

Haynes v. United States


In a 7-1 decision the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes

the court held that it was unconstitutional under the 5th amendment

a felon to could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration

You would think that that would end any sort of registration program the gun grabbers could come up with...if the court followed this ruling....

 

[jon_berzerk]

which had Stare decisis through Marchetti v. United States

 

[jon_berzerk]

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

it is probably unconstitutional to require a felon to use the background system

it certainly is unconstitutional to require a felon to register a firearm

Support that last statement, please

Haynes v. United States


In a 7-1 decision the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes

the court held that it was unconstitutional under the 5th amendment

a felon to could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration

You would think that that would end any sort of registration program the gun grabbers could come up with...if the court followed this ruling....

gun control is not about controlling crime nor criminals

a registration law is aimed directly at law abiding folks

with the next step as confiscation

 

[Sally Vater]

The deranged cockroach is as phoney as Nancy Pelosi's botox face.

Clinton's Southern strategy? Hillary fakes her accent for local crowd

 

[2aguy]

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

it is probably unconstitutional to require a felon to use the background system

it certainly is unconstitutional to require a felon to register a firearm

Support that last statement, please

Can anyone explain what a nutty world we live in when the gun grabbers want gun registration to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.......

But criminals are already exempt from ant law that would require universal gun registration?

the only people in legal jeapordy for not registering their guns......would be legal gun owners.......

do you people now see why we don't trust you gun grabbers?


Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

OK....now tell me what to do with the crazies? People with mental issues are more often than not major offenders. I repeat....what is wrong with a thorough cross checking examination and a 45 day waiting period?

Name one mass shooter that we have had that would have been stopped by a 45 day waiting period....research has shown mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance....well over your 45 day period....

mentally ill shooters are a timy number of all shooters.....amd the best way to catch them is with mental jphealth professionals....but......the colorado theater shooter and the sandy hook shooter both had contact with mental health professionals...didn't stop them.

cross checking examinations only work for those who submit to them...if criminals steal their guns and use people who can pass any examination to buy their guns for them...you can see why they don't work to stop criminals and mass shooters.

..well over your 45 day period....

what norway has like a 28 day waiting period or so

the norway shooter followed all the steps including mandatory training

before he went on his murderous shooting spree

 

[CowboyTed]

This same crap came out when Obama first came.

How many guns were confiscated?

Sweet FA... None...

Lieing back then and lieing now...

 

[jon_berzerk]

a weird factoid about the Norway shooter

he 1st went to Czech Republic to buy firearms because it has the most relaxed firearms laws in all of Europe

with the lowest crime rate (LOL)

he was denied --LOL

in his manifesto he said that was his first major set back

 

[2aguy]

This same crap came out when Obama first came.

How many guns were confiscated?

Sweet FA... None...

Lieing back then and lieing now...

Obama used up his poitical capital forcing obamacare through...and he has also stacked the lower courts with anti gun judges.....

Hilary will come in free of healthcare and she hates guns....well...the guns that are not protecting her and chelsea......

 

[2aguy]

a weird factoid about the Norway shooter

he 1st went to Czech Republic to buy firearms because it has the most relaxed firearms laws in all of Europe

with the lowest crime rate (LOL)

he was denied --LOL

in his manifesto he said that was his first major set back

Remember too..the three terrorists in France that shot up the cartoonists...2 were on actual government, terrorist watch lists and one was a convicted felon...they bought their guns in a Belgium train station...fylly automatic rifles, pistols, grenades and a rocket propelled grenade...for 5,000 euros........in a train station...

the 19 year old kid in Britain...ordered his Glock 19 through the internet..he said it was easier than buying a chocolate bar.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This same crap came out when Obama first came.

How many guns were confiscated?

Sweet FA... None...

Lieing back then and lieing now...

Is that because Obama is such a nice guy and loves guns or is that because he couldn't do anything about us having guns thanks to the protection of the US Constitution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

It doesn't start a gun control policy, it strips everyone outside of their ranks from owning guns. That's a tad different than banning fully automatic weapons and creating a working background check system. To say it's the same thing is ridiculous.

There is no way to create a working background check system.

Criminals get their guns by stealing them, or by using straw purchasers, people who can pass background checks who buy the guns for the criminals....thereby going around current federally mandated background checks and any future universal background check. And today, almost all first time rejections in background checks are for people who can legally own guns but get hit by a glitch in the system...

So could you explain how a background check system is supposed to work...when all evidence from the last 20 years show that it doesn't.......?

You throw people in jail who have anything to do with straw purchases. How is there not a way to crate a proper background check system? Before a couple of years ago a car couldn't go faster than 50 miles an hour on electricity, now you can.

What difference does it make to you? You don't even want a properly functioning background system. You guys just want to claim anyone who believes there should be at least some amount of gun control to be Nazis or akin to ISIS.

we already have a proper background check system..criminals just don't use it......if someone has a clean record they will pass any background check you can come up with....amd then they can sell or give their gun to a criminal....

I want a real system....put a tattoo on the shoulder of convicted felons....then you can check and immediately know if the buyer can buy the gun......felons will not be avle to even enter a gun store or gun show.

OK....now tell me what to do with the crazies? People with mental issues are more often than not major offenders. I repeat....what is wrong with a thorough cross checking examination and a 45 day waiting period?

Name one mass shooter that we have had that would have been stopped by a 45 day waiting period....research has shown mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance....well over your 45 day period....

mentally ill shooters are a timy number of all shooters.....amd the best way to catch them is with mental jphealth professionals....but......the colorado theater shooter and the sandy hook shooter both had contact with mental health professionals...didn't stop them.

cross checking examinations only work for those who submit to them...if criminals steal their guns and use people who can pass any examination to buy their guns for them...you can see why they don't work to stop criminals and mass shooters.

No.....he really can't.

 

[Stephanie]

If she doesn't want to called, Hitlery. she and all of the Progressive/Democrats might want to reconsider insulting the millions of INNOCENT gun owners that makes up the NRA and that would be people of all political affiliations and spewing this kind of nonsense just to please a certain group of the rabid gun haters in this country

SNIP:
Americans Much More Concerned About Gun Control Than Mass Shootings

18Oct, 2015by William Teach


As usual, leftist gun grabbers are running the rhetorical gamut from pushing “common sense gun control” (heavy restrictions on legal ownership of firearms) to wanting to require anyone who wants to buy a gun to have to suffer being shot themselves (that was actually post on Salon how in order to buy and own a gun they should be shot by one first)(I wonder if this applies to Hillary Clinton’s security detail?) to pushing for the same measures implemented by nations such as Australia and the U.K. Meaning, confiscation of guns, almost no ownership allowed.

Reality tends to smack the gun grabbers in the face when citizens are asked certain pointed questions, though
(Breitbart) On October 13, Chapman University released its Survey of American Fears and revealed that more than twice as many Americans fear gun control than fear “mass shootings.”

While those on the left may scratch their heads to wonder how this could be, the facts are that gun control leads to gun-free zones, which, in turn, appear to be very popular with mass shooters.


According to Chapman University, 16.4 percent of Americans hold “mass shootings” as one of their greatest fears, while more than twice that many Americans, 36.5 percent, are “afraid” or “very afraid” of gun control.

Read that again: twice as many are more afraid of gun control than mass shootings. Michael Bloomberg’s gun grabby Everytown reports that there have been 150 school shootings in the U.S. since 2013 (many of said “shootings” were gun discharges with no one injured or killed). What kind of zones are schools?

In fact, the poll shows that Americans fear many issues tied to government overreach far more than they fear mass shootings. For example, whereas 16.4 percent of Americans fear mass shootings, 58 percent fear government corruption, and 35.7 percent fear Obamacare. Moreover, 29.7 percent of Americans fear illegal immigration more than they fear mass shootings.

ALL of it here:
Americans Much More Concerned About Gun Control Than Mass Shootings | John Hawkins' Right Wing News

 

[OKTexas]

Right now, federal law doesn't prohibit convicted abusers from owning guns. Loopholes allow stalkers, abusive ex-dating partners, and people with emergency restraining orders to legally buy and own guns – endangering the lives of their victims.

You really don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about do you?

Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208,[1]18 U.S.C.§ 922(g)(9)[2]) is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ).