Registration = Confiscation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And, predictably: Once registration and confiscation starts, some nut will go on some sort of shocking, bloody rampage to "send a message" to the Government, a la McVeigh, which will only accelerate the process and extinguish any remaining pro-gun sentiment in the general public.

That's what I expect. I don't think registration would mean confiscation would soon follow. But what WOULD happen is that someone would do something irresponsible and horrendous with a registered legal gun, and then there would be a push for confiscation. Something like "See, we really can't let people have these at all. Registration isn't working, we have to totally ban them."
 
Here is my bet. There will not be any "law" passed. The king will just set an exeutive order. National registration...then confiscation. We will see the
House of Representives and the Senate just lay down...like a bunch of DOGS.

Its the new way to govern.

Mark
 
Here is my bet. There will not be any "law" passed. The king will just set an exeutive order. National registration...then confiscation. We will see the
House of Representives and the Senate just lay down...like a bunch of DOGS.

I would say the odds are better, much better, than any lottery ticket in your hand. And there will be thousands of idiots that will register their guns. They will say they won't, but then they will think, "I've got too much to lose", and then they'll grab their ankles. This will work out well for the government too because the older generations will die in their living room defending their rights and all that will be left are the brainwashed younger generation...oh, and those with their ankles in their hands. Then look, we don't need Social Security after all...all the old people are dead.
 
Registration does not necessarily equal confiscation. But it is a necessary precursor, and the most critical. "Constructive Confiscation" if you will ;)

TCB


I'd say she was held pretty damn liable for her actions :rolleyes:. Personal responsibility is only somewhat affected by laws (i.e. car insurance vs. texting while driving)

Point taken. I'm not sure what the answer is. I reckon Responsible people don't need laws telling them to secure weapons and irresponsible people likely won't follow them.

I hear people in the 60s took guns to school for hunting after etc. What has changed?

Maybe get away from all these prescription meds? I think I read a link linking most of the recent shootings to some form of psych medication.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You let them ban mail order handguns in 1927, then you let them pass the 1934 National Firearms Act, which exploded with the 1968 NFA, etc. Every inch you've given them, they've taken a mile. The Statist will keep chipping away at your rights until you have none. When will you draw the line and tell them "NO" with your actions?
 
I thought mail order guns were banned after the Kennedy assassination.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
 
The VP does not make laws, but the President can make executive orders that become law WITHIN FEDERAL BUREAUS if not voted down by a super majority of Congress within a given period. If that Federal bureau can claim ownership of some facet of firearms manufacturing, shipping sales or whatever they can be a problem. The use of the Interstate Commerce clause comes to mind.

No. EO's cannot be used to regulate interstate commerce. That power is specifically given to Congress. I think it's scary how many Americans think the President is a king who can do these kinds of things.

Congress writes the laws. The President executes them. The President, or VP do not write the laws. If you work for the President you must follow his orders, or be replaced by someone who will. Just like any other job. If you don't work for him, you don't follow his orders.
The POTUS is not a king.
 
I really have a sinking feeling in my gut - you know when people "mean well" but end up making things worse than ever before and you can see it coming a ten miles away?

They don't mean well. They loathe your beliefs. They don't trust you. They want to control you. Your rights are irrelevant to them.
 
No. EO's cannot be used to regulate interstate commerce. That power is specifically given to Congress. I think it's scary how many Americans think the President is a king who can do these

Th President doesn't have the authority to declare war either but that hasn't stopped numerous presidents from effectively doing so. I think it's scary how many people think presidents feel bound by the law.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
 
Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 seem yet other indications that Presidents can issue extreme and overreaching edicts against their own citizens and have them put into concentration camps (this was a term in use at the time, and it was used by President Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, before the discoveries of later WWII made them squeamish about use of the term).
 
Ask yourself what purpose registration serves. I can't think of any reason other than to know where to go get them when/if the time comes to confiscate them.
 
While she had no way of knowing she would be killed, I wonder if she would have secured them better if owners were held liable for not taking proper precautions to prevent theft of traceable weapons.

This is no different than what we expect from Police and Military issued firearms.

Not sure what you are getting at. They could have been locked up in a $2k Fort Knox "safe" (residentual locker) She still MIGHT have let him know combo, he might have known where she wrote it down, keys were,etc.
Or ask her to show him one. (IIRC she let him shoot under her supervision) or force her to unlock it.
Failing all that. I have seen quality gun safes opened by power tools that cost less then $100 by idiots. (who attack door rather then weaker parts of safe) It does NOT take long to get into one.
I knew where the shotgun was when I was small child. I also knew what would happen if I touched it (without permission) Also I looked at rifle almost every day. (it was in rafters of garage) I didn't get to actually see/touch it till I was 14. Only times in my life I have pointed a real gun at a person is when I have been ready/willing to pull trigger. (and it better go boom)
My parents were not into guns. But dad wanted to make sure we were safe.
 
I lived in california when two campers were shot in their sleep. This was in no cal around crescent city. The weapon was a Marlin Camp Carbine in 45 cal and the police went to the gun stores and researched all the 4473 forms. They then went to the owners of the Camp Carbines and asked them to "volunteer" them for testing. Needless to say, they didn't catch the killer.

My firearms were "registered" with the state when I was there. It was very uncomfortable to know that they knew every firearm in my house.

Registration may not equal confiscation, but if it ever came down to, such as what Illinois and New York are trying to implement, it's going to be hard to avoid it.
 
Here's my problem with this registration idea. If they wanted to register guns, wouldn't congress have to repeal the section of the Firarms Owner Protection Act of 1984 that explicitly bans a national registry of non-NFA firearms?
 
I'm never going to register my 1911. period. you cannot "mis-interpret" the 2A that badly that the meaning of the 2A allows for registration and de-facto government approval for a law abiding citizen to keep&bear a more than 100yr old pistol. no way.

I'm sure the founding fathers had a state in mind which knew exactly who had which weapons so if the state goes mad... they know what and where to confiscate. that's just nuts.

and how would gun registration prevent mass shootings? I think if someone is that crazy - he doesn't give a damn about if his gun is registered or not. it's a suicide mission anyway....
 
What is the benefit of registration? Oh yeah, registration allows the government to know exactly who is supposed to have a particular gun.

When would registration be valuable in stopping crime? Well, a recovered gun might help the police find an otherwise unknown criminal who had escaped the scene of a crime.

How would registration "help stop these tragedies" (mass shootings)? NOT IN THE LEAST.
 
I can't really say what I might do, but there is no other purpose for registration than (ultimately) confiscation.

Whether or not we have a 2nd.... didn't matter to the folks in New Orleans when LEO/National Guard were confiscating rifles under the threat of death. LEO/National Guard/Military cannot be expected to side with ordinary citizens in the face of obvious constitutional violations. The good news ( I suppose) is that once confiscation starts, the world will know immediately through social networks.... unlike those folks after Katrina who faced roaming bands of LEO confiscators taking guns from isolated folk fighting for day-to-day survival.
 
The king will just set an exeutive order.

He can't do it. The precedent was established during Truman's reign when the POTUS tried to write new law with an executive order. The SCOTUS said EOs can only clarify existing law.

There's no way around it. Congress would have to write gun confiscation into law.

Now, if somehow the POTUS could declare a national emergency, then that's different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top