Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[iceberg]

yep , FREEDOM is much more important than SAFETY CNM !!

you'd be pretty safe in a 10x10 solidarity cell.

 

[2aguy]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

No, trucks can't, you can't put cement curbs every 10 feet in a road way......

Trucks are deadlier than rifles as Nice and Vegas show. According to you, we now must ban all trucks....exept, of course for the government and military...they get to keep their trucks...hard to transport people to the mass grave sights in Smart Cars...

 

[iceberg]

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

this can be easily flipped - "so you'll admit these lists can be used to take away the very guns you said you're not coming after"?

 

[2aguy]

And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

Yeah, I'll let 10 round mags for the Ruger go. That's where my line is drawn.

The guy in Parkland used 10 round magazines to murder 18 people you doofus....you asshats will not stop at 10 round magazines....

The Russian shooter used a 5 shot shotgun to murder 20 people....you won't stop with pump action shotguns either....or any gun.

 

[iceberg]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

 

[OldLady]

As for population..well yes..it is easier to enforce a law in a smaller population...just as a matter of logistics and expense.

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

Why do you oppose universal? Wouldn’t that be more efficient and effective?

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

 

[2aguy]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

 

[iceberg]

And yes, mags greater than 10 rounds for the Ruger should be banned.

Yeah, I'll let 10 round mags for the Ruger go. That's where my line is drawn.

The guy in Parkland used 10 round magazines to murder 18 people you doofus....you asshats will not stop at 10 round magazines....

The Russian shooter used a 5 shot shotgun to murder 20 people....you won't stop with pump action shotguns either....or any gun.

they say they only want small changes. trouble is, each change builds off the last til in the end, their "changes" are nothing short of total control

 

[cnm]

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs.

Nothing will stop a swimming pool. Oh, well, a desert, maybe.

 

[cnm]

The gun nuts keep going on about 'stopping'. The idea of 'reducing' is dismissed as not worthy of consideration.

 

[2aguy]

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

You have been shown over and over again that background checks, and registration do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....

Do you understand that criminals cannot be prosecuted for not registering their illegal guns? Do you understand that? Haynes v United States....Supreme Court ruling...

Registration does nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and only sets up future confiscation....

do you understand that?

Criminals use straw buyers who can pass any background check, or they steal the gun.

Mass shooters can pass any background check, the Pulse Night Club shooter passed a background check for his job, one for each gun he purchased, he had a year long detailed FBI investigation, and FBI undercover approach and was interviewed by the FBI 2 times.....and passed all of that with flying colors...

 

[cnm]

they say they only want small changes. trouble is, each change builds off the last til in the end, their "changes" are nothing short of total control

Paranoid raving loonies who want to take on the might of the US defence forces with an AR15 and a Glock will put a stop to that.

 

[iceberg]

Shaking my head here. Police departments need to coordinate here as there, and the expense per capita is not substantially different. Have the same number of law enforcement officers per 100,000 of the population, and you're pretty much there. Really, that argument doesn't hold water at all.

I'd rather accept your "culture" argument (at least with respect to a substantial number of gun nuts), along with an unwarranted (and often hypocritical) subservience to the Founders and their 18th century concept of a well-regulated society.

No.....criminals get past current, Federally mandated background checks by using straw buyers, people who have clean records who can pass the background check....usually relatives or friends, most likely girlfriends, baby mommas, grandmothers, mothers, and a lot of the time they are under threat of physical violence....and as actual research shows, criminals don't like private sales for guns because they don't know if the stranger they are buying the gun from is an undercover police officer.....

Mass shooter's first crime is the mass shooting, so they have clean records which is why they can pass any background check either current or universal.

The only reason to have universal background checks, since they wouldn't do anything to stop either criminals or mass shooters....is to come back later and demand universal gun registration....that is the real goal. The anti-gunners demand universal background checks knowing they won't stop criminals or mass shooters. Then, when criminals and mass shooters keep getting guns because of the reasons above, they come back and say....see, in order for UBCs to work, we need to register all the guns, otherwise we can't know who originally owned the guns in the first place.

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps. How do we know this? Because of Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, various states in the U.S. who first registered rifles and then banned them.....New York, and other cities......

Then, Universal Background checks are also aimed at normal gun owners...how?

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge.

The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation.

Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations.

Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

So if those people ca

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

now - here is where we agree. at the federal level we *do* need to ensure that the background checks are in fact comprehensive. today they're not really. after you buy a couple of guns you know to answer all questions YES | NO and i think only 1 is a "yes" (are you a citizen" and the rest, if you answer YES it's a flag. so just don't answer it.

DO YOU DO DRUGS??? YES | NO - who in their right mind will check yes to that?

we have seen instances where people got by a background check. several times. the orlando dude who went nuts in the gay club, he got past a background check and never should have. if i remember correctly there was a military flag on there that didn't show up.

so fixing this WOULD help stop the violence. stopping things like the gun show loophole and less capacity mags - well they've not shown to stop a thing so those are pointless to me.

 

[Blues Man]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Trucks!

yup the sheep are definitively smarter than you

 

[cnm]

You have been shown over and over again that background checks, and registration do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....

That's why handguns and assault style rifles need to be taken out of circulation in order to reduce the firearms homicide and mass shooting rates.

 

[iceberg]

The list of things that can be used to kill is literally endless

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

 

[2aguy]

The gun nuts keep going on about 'stopping'. The idea of 'reducing' is dismissed as not worthy of consideration.

No.....your ideas about "reducing" are not worthy of consideration.

Actual ideas that work.....a 30 year sentence for using a gun in the commission of an actual crime on top of whatever sentence you get for the crime...that works.....how do we know?

Japan has a life sentence for using a gun in a crime....their criminals stopped using guns except in the most important killings...and the shooter knows they are going to prison for life....

That is how you "reduce" gun crime....you lock up violent gun criminals....

Our problem isn't guns....it is people like you supporting democrats who keep letting repeat gun offenders out of prison over and over again.

 

[iceberg]

they say they only want small changes. trouble is, each change builds off the last til in the end, their "changes" are nothing short of total control

Paranoid raving loonies who want to take on the might of the US defence forces with an AR15 and a Glock will put a stop to that.

great. show me those specific people. i got no use for your flaming strawmen.

 

[2aguy]

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Yeah...but still....to run over people....maybe left wingers?

not going to run over anyone regardless of their beliefs. unless of course their belief is i need to die and i'm simply defending myself.

besides, doing the body work and paint on my rebuilt dodge would be pretty expensive.

But......is it tempting even a teeny, tiny little bit?

 

[iceberg]

You have been shown over and over again that background checks, and registration do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters....

That's why handguns and assault style rifles need to be taken out of circulation in order to reduce the firearms homicides and mass shootings rates.

and again - you've yet to define "assault style" that doesn't bleed into the simple 22 rifle every teen in the country has owned at least a few of in their lives to shoot squirrels with.

your circle jerk is old dude.