If a UBC passes, would you continue to buy or stop?
- Thread starter mcdonl
- Start date
- Status
Twiki357
Member
I'm already on californias grossly inacurate list from guns that I bought there before I escaped to Arizona. But Federal law prohibits any Fed agency from maintaining a firearms registry. Not sure if that includes a prohibitation against a registry of gun owners. I think it does, otherwise 4473s would probably be sent to the Feds.
But then Reids Senate bill 649 has verbage for a registry.
But then Reids Senate bill 649 has verbage for a registry.
mcdonl
Member
Certainly not my intent joeschmoe...
I guess, that sitting in a position where I now have everything I NEED... yes NEED covered for firearms I was just thinking that not submitting to more government paperwork than I need to, and knowingly being on a gun owners list (Because, I am still naive enough to think that if you live in a free state, and do not own NFA regulated firearms your NOT on any list) than I would be better off, and feel better spending my money on other items.
But...
So many have made such good points about standing and fighting, and overwhelming the system that I am beginning to think I will still continue to buy guns even if I dont need them.
And... to be clear... my estimation of what could come would be a UBC law that says a) all sales of guns even FTF and Gunshow need a NICS check (The "gun show loophole") and b) those transactions would be stored in a database accesible by the FOIA.
^^^^
THAT is what I wish to avoid.
larryh1108
Member
Short answer: yes
Longer answer: Over time they will require us turning them in. Maybe not our generation but they are moving in that direction. To make it happen they will need a list to start. Our kids are the ones who will see it but they need the lists starting from today to take the guns tomorrow. Make no mistake, this is their goal.
mcdonl
Member
X-Rap
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,657
All they will need to do is make a few examples of good citizens by charging them with the full extent of whatever law the end up with.
Do you not think the media wouldn't sensationalize the trial of some upstanding citizen who had an arsenal stashed away in their attic.
How many would keep theirs after seeing the family torn up and sent to jail and all their worldly effects confiscated and sold.
Do you not think the media wouldn't sensationalize the trial of some upstanding citizen who had an arsenal stashed away in their attic.
How many would keep theirs after seeing the family torn up and sent to jail and all their worldly effects confiscated and sold.
+1 my fellow American.
Cosmoline
Member
True. And cars are vastly more destructive than firearms. There are 1,000 or so accidental firearm related deaths each year. Compare that to accidental car deaths, which run up more deaths per WEEK. And of course cars have done enormous damage to the environment directly and indirectly. Apart from wilderness being annihilated, there's a whole nation of excellent farmland buried under suburbs now thanks to cars. Yet in spite of these things, the car is sacrosanct and no politician could survive if he threatened to take away anything that moved faster than 55 MPH, or to restrict ownership to those who could show a sufficient need.* That's what I'd like to see with firearms. A licensing system designed to encourage ownership and marksmanship, with school classes as well. That's how we ultimately win, I think. Though the road is perilous for sure. Hiding and burying guns isn't the answer. I know that much.
*One of my favorite responses to antis is to tell them I'll agree to give up my handguns if they agree to give up all personal autos. So rifles and commercial trucks can stay, but no cars or handguns. Think of the children who would be saved! It always quiets them down.
mcdonl
Member
If you have not done so, listen to the NRP (Freakonomics) podcast called "How we should think about guns" - It is pretty much "about the numbers" which is how that show works and it points out how much more deadly a swimming pool is than a gun.
22-rimfire
Member
They could "take them", but it won't be necessary as probably 80% of law abiding Americans would turn in their guns if they were required to do so. The other 20% would get flushed out over a period of years... same as Class III weapons that are illegal/non-registered. That's reality.
This kind of talk is kind of pointless. And people wonder why there is such a demand for firearms and ammunition right now?
JRH6856
Member
There are two questions in play.
The Poll asks: "Would you continue to buy firearms knowing you would be on a registry?"
The OP asks: "If a UBC passes, would you continue to buy or stop?"
Two different questions, with two different answers.
If a UBC passes, I will read the law and base my future actions on what it actually says.
If it actually says a registry is required, I may exercise my 5th amendment rights to protect my 2nd Amendment rights. Or maybe not.
The Poll asks: "Would you continue to buy firearms knowing you would be on a registry?"
The OP asks: "If a UBC passes, would you continue to buy or stop?"
Two different questions, with two different answers.
If a UBC passes, I will read the law and base my future actions on what it actually says.
If it actually says a registry is required, I may exercise my 5th amendment rights to protect my 2nd Amendment rights. Or maybe not.
Not true.
This is not England, Canada or Australia. We are not subjects. We don't bow to monarchs. Americans know what a right to arms means. Those other countries did not have such a right specifically enumerated in their Constitutions. This country was founded by armed rebellion.
The government will never be able to order us to turn them in, and we wouldn't if they did. They couldn't enact or enforce such an order and we wouldn't comply.
SabbathWolf
member
That's about how I see it too.
A few may comply.
But...a whole lot of others would seriously be considering rebellion (yet again) at that point.
USAF_Vet
Member
do you honestly think there are no illegal/ unregistered full auto weapons in the hands of civilians?
OK.
I also have to disagree with your 80%/ 20% comment.
Of the gun owners I know, 80% would either not turn them in, or pass their guns off to someone else who would not turn them in. 20% of Americans might be scared or indifferent enough to turn in their guns, but not 80%.
I'm sure I'm already on whatever registry is applicable, and would be, regardless of what I did.
No, I wouldn't stop buying guns if private transfers were criminalized.
I usually laugh out loud when people who have filled out a 4473 in the past, or who are or have been licensed to carry, say something akin to a "yes" vote in this poll
No, I wouldn't stop buying guns if private transfers were criminalized.
I usually laugh out loud when people who have filled out a 4473 in the past, or who are or have been licensed to carry, say something akin to a "yes" vote in this poll
Last edited:
Like it matters - I have a CCW, so they're pretty sure I own at least three...
Most of my guns are recent purchases, and all were purchased in accordance with state law. That way, if they are ever recovered after that unfortunate boating accident, they can be returned to me...
Most of my guns are recent purchases, and all were purchased in accordance with state law. That way, if they are ever recovered after that unfortunate boating accident, they can be returned to me...
In the short term they can hold a midnight voice vote to 'freeze' said registry like they did with the 86 Hughes Amendment.
And that's what a registry is ultimately good for. Over the course of decades you go from requiring registration to making it a serious crime to be in possession of an unregistered gun to requiring the registration to be renewed every 3 years. Then when there's a mass shooting and the emotions are right you pass a law that says the government will no longer renew registrations. Voila, now the gun owners will have to come in and turn in their guns when their registration runs out. Since it's a 3 year period, the turn ins will be in ones and twos instead of everyone at once. A few may refuse to turn theirs in, no problem, they're in the registry and the cops can be sent after those few.
That's how England did it.
larryh1108
Member
The question is, with all that is going on, how many people will register guns that have no paper trail as of today? If there are 300 million firearms in our hands, how many have been bought, sold, transferred, inherited, etc, before the NICS laws became in effect? If you own guns you bought privately over 20 years ago (the time they ask you to retain your records) and they pass registration, who would register these guns? The government can mandate registration but I doubt many of the previously "clean" guns will be put on any list.
Cosmoline
Member
Yes the dangers are there. But we surely lose if we start acting like we need to run off and hide in the woods. The biggest triumph of the past generation--the CCW revolution--was all about getting licensed. Yes licensing can be used as a weapon, but it cuts both ways. It also has the effect of legitimizing the RKBA. And if the licenses are controlled by a user-funded system, it's darned difficult to turn that into a seizure mechanism. We win by normalizing the RKBA and making it as widespread as possible, not by hunkering down.
larryh1108
Member
Let's not forget Katrina.... Abuse of power... lists from a database that didn't exist?
SabbathWolf
member
Yep.
When I was a small kid, we had a reading assignment when I was in school during the 1970's.
It was a book called "Farewell to Manzanar."
We had to write a book report on it.
That particular story has stuck with me to this very day.
I would stop buying because one, i have everything i really need and from what i understand about the UBC bill that chuckie schumer put out, they want to turn ALL gun owners into criminals. I have already made plans to transfer almost all of my scary black stuff to the people/persons that it was going to on down the road anyway If any of this anti american crap goes through.
The NSA can track emails and phone calls. You really think they're not monitoring the background checks? I live in PA and the state police have been accused of holding on to background check data as a defacto registry. Unless you've paid cash for everything gun related, not joined the NRA, or never written a politician I think you're on a list.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
