***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[Chaka]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

Why don't you read it for yourself instead of #####ing and moaning that people won't spoon feed you the cliff notes.

I might have to. I read the first 40 pages, of the 137 page document, and decided it wasn't worth my time to finish as they hadn't gotten to any actual conclusions. I figured 5 digit, as the guy who put it out there as evidence of ATF abuse, would be able to say if the congressional committed came to that conclusion too. I am guessing that they didn't.

 

[Chaka]

Question for [icon], 5 digit, Carolina and the like: Do you think there is a problem with gun violence in this country?

If so what would you do to try and reduce it? We're already incredibly well armed as a country, is more guns the solution? Do we give them to anyone who has the money to buy them? What was gun violence like back during the "old western" days? I really don't know and I don't want to quote Tombstone as my only source so I am open to your thoughts.

I think we have a problem with laws that create a black market, that create a necessity for a market that is governed by violence since it can not be governed legally..

Remove guns from that situation, and there will still be a need for criminals to police criminals with violence. They will just use another method.

Most gangs and criminal activity are fueled by an illegal market (drugs). Adding another illegal market to that is not the answer... A lot of current gun violence is a product of current laws.. End the war on drugs, that will end more gun violence then a gun registration..

This is a great point. And aside from the war on drugs, any war on guns is going to create a bigger black market for guns and ammunition. It will provide another market for criminal enterprises to profit.

I agree that would be a concern if the plan were to make all guns illegal but that will simply never happen in this country.

 

[mad sweeney]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

Final Solution? You've passed on from the paranoid to the utterly absurd. Plus you were getting on a few guys earlier on for just cutting and pasting when that seems to be well over half of what you do. Ending your epic CnP session with the phenomenally stupid Final Solution allusion pretty much nails shut the coffin of you being a completely close minded, brainwashed tool down at the piss poor level of the intellectually dishonest (a mild way of putting it) short bus window licker, Carolina Hypocrite. Congrats.

 

[mad sweeney]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

Why don't you read it for yourself instead of #####ing and moaning that people won't spoon feed you the cliff notes.

I might have to. I read the first 40 pages, of the 137 page document, and decided it wasn't worth my time to finish as they hadn't gotten to any actual conclusions. I figured 5 digit, as the guy who put it out there as evidence of ATF abuse, would be able to say if the congressional committed came to that conclusion too. I am guessing that they didn't.

These dingdongs will move heaven and Earth to get around having to actually own up to a truth that they're opposing, even if it's an undisputed fact. Him and CH will just tiptoe around it and try to turn it on you and pretend it didn't happen and go on accusing others of the same thing they're avoiding admitting. They'r e the kind of brainwashed, unthinking, intellectually and criminally(figuratively) dishonest fools that led to Idiocracy.

 

[Spanky267]

FBI: The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.

Don't like the 24 hour NCIS law to destroy all identifying information so as to prevent a federal firearm registry from being built? Keep blaming the NRA for pointing this out as it was outlined in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Thats because section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system, and it prohibits the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions of those who pass the background check.

Personally I don't care whether it's Brady or the NRA to blame. Not having a federal firearm registry is a bad idea. We should change the laws and have one.

I wouldn't oppose a national registration if I felt like it would do any good and not just be a waste of time and money. What benefit do you actually think the federal gov. will get out of having a registry if you are not going to limit the person too how many they can have?

So that if a gun is used in a crime, we can trace it back to it's owner.

So, you have to assume that the gun is left at the scene of the crime, that it was not stolen, or that it was even registered. How will this reduce the amount of gun violence?

My goal is to eliminate all guns that are not registered. What we want to do is make it much more difficult for the bad guys to get guns. The only way I can see to do this is to register all guns and create a national database.

I don't see how we can't do this with a gun ownership license. You have a gun, you better have a license or the gun is confiscated and you go to jail. Requirement to get a license? A hunting license for long guns. Saftey and self defense course for protection gun.

that's all fine. But if a crime is committed with a gun, then we should be able to trace the gun back to its most recent legal owner. How to do this without a national database?

This essentially already exists in an informal way. Any gun purchased through a licensed dealer has all of its data and the purchasers data captured by the FFL. How do you

think that the Federal Authorities knew that Adam Lanza's mother legally owned her weapons. When you buy a gun from a dealer, you go through the background check. Once the check comes back and the purchase can proceed the dealer records the serial number of the weapon, its type and caliber and all of your personal details. If its a rifle or shotgun you can take it home the same day. If its a handgun you have the 3 business day waiting period before you can take the gun. The dealer keeps that paperwork basically forever. If that firearm is used in a crime, once it is recovered the law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer to find out who they sold it to. From there the police can contact who the manufacturer sold it to. Normally a large wholesaler or a licensed dealer. Then the police can find our who that dealer sold the gun to and thats when the knock comes on your door to ask about the gun. So while not a direct national registry there is a way for the police to track down who owns a legally owned gun.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

Guns account for over 800 accidental deaths every year.

They also enable suicide and crimes of passion.

The causes of violence and suicide should be the targets.. Not the tools used..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

At this point, the main cause is opposition by people like you to reasonable gun control measures.

The cause's of violence and suicide are people like 5 digit who oppose additional gun control?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

A young person may commit suicide because they are disliked and picked on at school, or their boyfriend cheats on them, or their family is falling apart..

A gang banger may attack someone for owing them money, or invading their turf, or giving them nasty looks, etc..

The list goes on and on.. I can find many real causes why violence or suicide are committed, you can't seem to accurately find one...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

 

[Chaka]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

Guns account for over 800 accidental deaths every year.

They also enable suicide and crimes of passion.

The causes of violence and suicide should be the targets.. Not the tools used..

I don't disagree. What is the root cause of accidental gun deaths and crimes of passion and how do we solve them?

 

[Spanky267]

I doubt it will cost more than a few billion. Maybe not that much. But even if it did, it would be well worth it.

Anyhow, since I don't own any guns, I wouldn't have to pay for it.

So which constitutional rights do you not support imposing fees on to excercise?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

Guns account for over 800 accidental deaths every year.

They also enable suicide and crimes of passion.

The causes of violence and suicide should be the targets.. Not the tools used..

I don't disagree. What is the root cause of accidental gun deaths and crimes of passion and how do we solve them?

More education for gun owners.. And the ones who have children drowned in pools, more education there as well..

It's obvious the current laws governing murder don't stop killers in crimes of passion, why would more gun laws stop them?

 

[Chaka]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

 

[timschochet]

I doubt it will cost more than a few billion. Maybe not that much. But even if it did, it would be well worth it.

Anyhow, since I don't own any guns, I wouldn't have to pay for it.

So which constitutional rights do you not support imposing fees on to excercise?

Almost all constitutional rights cost money in one form or another. You want to exercise your right to freedom of speech by walking around with posters that are going to anger other people? More police are required to protect you. Why shouldn't you pay for them?

In this case somebody has to pay for the "well-regulated" part. I think it should be the gun-owners.

 

[timschochet]

FBI: The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.

Don't like the 24 hour NCIS law to destroy all identifying information so as to prevent a federal firearm registry from being built? Keep blaming the NRA for pointing this out as it was outlined in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Thats because section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system, and it prohibits the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions of those who pass the background check.

Personally I don't care whether it's Brady or the NRA to blame. Not having a federal firearm registry is a bad idea. We should change the laws and have one.

I wouldn't oppose a national registration if I felt like it would do any good and not just be a waste of time and money. What benefit do you actually think the federal gov. will get out of having a registry if you are not going to limit the person too how many they can have?

So that if a gun is used in a crime, we can trace it back to it's owner.

So, you have to assume that the gun is left at the scene of the crime, that it was not stolen, or that it was even registered. How will this reduce the amount of gun violence?

My goal is to eliminate all guns that are not registered. What we want to do is make it much more difficult for the bad guys to get guns. The only way I can see to do this is to register all guns and create a national database.

I don't see how we can't do this with a gun ownership license. You have a gun, you better have a license or the gun is confiscated and you go to jail. Requirement to get a license? A hunting license for long guns. Saftey and self defense course for protection gun.

that's all fine. But if a crime is committed with a gun, then we should be able to trace the gun back to its most recent legal owner. How to do this without a national database?

This essentially already exists in an informal way. Any gun purchased through a licensed dealer has all of its data and the purchasers data captured by the FFL. How do you

think that the Federal Authorities knew that Adam Lanza's mother legally owned her weapons. When you buy a gun from a dealer, you go through the background check. Once the check comes back and the purchase can proceed the dealer records the serial number of the weapon, its type and caliber and all of your personal details. If its a rifle or shotgun you can take it home the same day. If its a handgun you have the 3 business day waiting period before you can take the gun. The dealer keeps that paperwork basically forever. If that firearm is used in a crime, once it is recovered the law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer to find out who they sold it to. From there the police can contact who the manufacturer sold it to. Normally a large wholesaler or a licensed dealer. Then the police can find our who that dealer sold the gun to and thats when the knock comes on your door to ask about the gun. So while not a direct national registry there is a way for the police to track down who owns a legally owned gun.

Yeah, except for all of the private transfers of guns that are not recorded. It's a loophole that allows gun crime to continue.

 

[timschochet]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

At this point, the main cause is opposition by people like you to reasonable gun control measures.

The cause's of violence and suicide are people like 5 digit who oppose additional gun control?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

A young person may commit suicide because they are disliked and picked on at school, or their boyfriend cheats on them, or their family is falling apart..

A gang banger may attack someone for owing them money, or invading their turf, or giving them nasty looks, etc..

The list goes on and on.. I can find many real causes why violence or suicide are committed, you can't seem to accurately find one...

Yes, the cause of violence are people like 5 digit and yourself. A significant portion of all guns used in crimes are obtained illegally through private sales. We tried to close the loophole that allowed it, and you guys opposed it due to your paranoid fears of gun seizure.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

FBI: The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.

Don't like the 24 hour NCIS law to destroy all identifying information so as to prevent a federal firearm registry from being built? Keep blaming the NRA for pointing this out as it was outlined in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Thats because section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system, and it prohibits the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions of those who pass the background check.

Personally I don't care whether it's Brady or the NRA to blame. Not having a federal firearm registry is a bad idea. We should change the laws and have one.

I wouldn't oppose a national registration if I felt like it would do any good and not just be a waste of time and money. What benefit do you actually think the federal gov. will get out of having a registry if you are not going to limit the person too how many they can have?

So that if a gun is used in a crime, we can trace it back to it's owner.

So, you have to assume that the gun is left at the scene of the crime, that it was not stolen, or that it was even registered. How will this reduce the amount of gun violence?

My goal is to eliminate all guns that are not registered. What we want to do is make it much more difficult for the bad guys to get guns. The only way I can see to do this is to register all guns and create a national database.

I don't see how we can't do this with a gun ownership license. You have a gun, you better have a license or the gun is confiscated and you go to jail. Requirement to get a license? A hunting license for long guns. Saftey and self defense course for protection gun.

that's all fine. But if a crime is committed with a gun, then we should be able to trace the gun back to its most recent legal owner. How to do this without a national database?

This essentially already exists in an informal way. Any gun purchased through a licensed dealer has all of its data and the purchasers data captured by the FFL. How do you

think that the Federal Authorities knew that Adam Lanza's mother legally owned her weapons. When you buy a gun from a dealer, you go through the background check. Once the check comes back and the purchase can proceed the dealer records the serial number of the weapon, its type and caliber and all of your personal details. If its a rifle or shotgun you can take it home the same day. If its a handgun you have the 3 business day waiting period before you can take the gun. The dealer keeps that paperwork basically forever. If that firearm is used in a crime, once it is recovered the law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer to find out who they sold it to. From there the police can contact who the manufacturer sold it to. Normally a large wholesaler or a licensed dealer. Then the police can find our who that dealer sold the gun to and thats when the knock comes on your door to ask about the gun. So while not a direct national registry there is a way for the police to track down who owns a legally owned gun.

Yeah, except for all of the private transfers of guns that are not recorded. It's a loophole that allows gun crime to continue.

Criminals aren't going to follow the law to begin with, what makes you think they will follow this one? The result is only a new tax on the non-criminals the way you're suggesting...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

At this point, the main cause is opposition by people like you to reasonable gun control measures.

The cause's of violence and suicide are people like 5 digit who oppose additional gun control?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

A young person may commit suicide because they are disliked and picked on at school, or their boyfriend cheats on them, or their family is falling apart..

A gang banger may attack someone for owing them money, or invading their turf, or giving them nasty looks, etc..

The list goes on and on.. I can find many real causes why violence or suicide are committed, you can't seem to accurately find one...

Yes, the cause of violence are people like 5 digit and yourself. A significant portion of all guns used in crimes are obtained illegally through private sales. We tried to close the loophole that allowed it, and you guys opposed it due to your paranoid fears of gun seizure.

Looks like you need to look up the definition of 'Cause'...

And as far as gun seizures go, it's obvious that without opposition to gun legislation, we'd be on the way to that if you pay any attention to the quotes 5 digit posted above...

 

[Chaka]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

Guns account for over 800 accidental deaths every year.

They also enable suicide and crimes of passion.

The causes of violence and suicide should be the targets.. Not the tools used..

I don't disagree. What is the root cause of accidental gun deaths and crimes of passion and how do we solve them?

More education for gun owners.. And the ones who have children drowned in pools, more education there as well..

It's obvious the current laws governing murder don't stop killers in crimes of passion, why would more gun laws stop them?

More education? How do you propose to make that happen?

And how does that help stop crimes of passion and suicides, which account for tens of thousands of lives every year?

 

[Chaka]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

It will never be an issue, take that to the bank.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

It will never be an issue, take that to the bank.

And the reason for that is the opposition that is being ridiculed for fighting against it right? Lending credence to the argument some of us are making.. Do you not agree?

If no one opposed a partial, or entire ban on guns, don't you think we'd have a partial or entire ban on guns?

 

[Chaka]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

Why don't you read it for yourself instead of #####ing and moaning that people won't spoon feed you the cliff notes.

I might have to. I read the first 40 pages, of the 137 page document, and decided it wasn't worth my time to finish as they hadn't gotten to any actual conclusions. I figured 5 digit, as the guy who put it out there as evidence of ATF abuse, would be able to say if the congressional committed came to that conclusion too. I am guessing that they didn't.

These dingdongs will move heaven and Earth to get around having to actually own up to a truth that they're opposing, even if it's an undisputed fact. Him and CH will just tiptoe around it and try to turn it on you and pretend it didn't happen and go on accusing others of the same thing they're avoiding admitting. They'r e the kind of brainwashed, unthinking, intellectually and criminally(figuratively) dishonest fools that led to Idiocracy.

I would not put Carolina in that group, I have seen some threads where he/she seems to be unreasonable but he/she has been remarkably thoughtful and non-inflammatory in here and I appreciate that. Right now, IMO, he is the reasonable voice of the opposition in this thread and I am paying more attention to what he is posting.

And I am not a "get rid of all guns" guy so you may not want to entirely view me as an ally in here. Frankly you seem to be rather intractable and your posts in here, since I started posting, don't seem very well considered when compared to your normal standard which I otherwise consider to be high (I am not one of the "bash tim on principle" guys).

There is a middle ground in here that needs to be reached and intractable/obstinate positions only seem to be inflammatory. Although I admit they help establish the fringes from which each side needs to move away from.

 

[Chaka]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

It will never be an issue, take that to the bank.

And the reason for that is the opposition that is being ridiculed for fighting against it right? Lending credence to the argument some of us are making.. Do you not agree?

If no one opposed a partial, or entire ban on guns, don't you think we'd have a partial or entire ban on guns?

If "ifs and buts" were "candies and nuts" we'd all have a merry Christmas.

It will never happen, but there is a position that reasonable people can achieve that will satisfy gun owners and help save lives of innocent victims of gun violence. That is what we need to be working towards.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

Guns account for over 800 accidental deaths every year.

They also enable suicide and crimes of passion.

The causes of violence and suicide should be the targets.. Not the tools used..

I don't disagree. What is the root cause of accidental gun deaths and crimes of passion and how do we solve them?

More education for gun owners.. And the ones who have children drowned in pools, more education there as well..

It's obvious the current laws governing murder don't stop killers in crimes of passion, why would more gun laws stop them?

More education? How do you propose to make that happen?

And how does that help stop crimes of passion and suicides, which account for tens of thousands of lives every year?

How does registration stop crimes of passion or suicides? I've not seen one suggested bit of legislation outside of a banning of guns (you promised me this won't happen) that would stop crimes of passion or suicides that include guns...

What is your point there? Tell me how your propositions help.

And it seems to me that accidental deaths by firearm aren't going to be effected by registration either, here again only a gun banning changes this one as well. But education could come by the way of public service commercials, pamphlets at places where you can purchase guns, more emphasis on the topic at gun safety courses, etc..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And the reason for that is the opposition that is being ridiculed for fighting against it right? Lending credence to the argument some of us are making.. Do you not agree?

If no one opposed a partial, or entire ban on guns, don't you think we'd have a partial or entire ban on guns?

If "ifs and buts" were "candies and nuts" we'd all have a merry Christmas.

It will never happen, but there is a position that reasonable people can achieve that will satisfy gun owners and help save lives of innocent victims of gun violence. That is what we need to be working towards.

You didn't answer the question

I agree something can and should be done, but I don't believe that something is new gun legislation. Attack the causes of violence, decrease violence as a whole, and naturally gun violence will decrease.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 16:07, said:

5 digit know nothing, on 28 Apr 2013 - 15:37, said:

Chaka, on 28 Apr 2013 - 13:35, said:

And I'm still waiting for your synopsis of the Congressional Committee meeting regarding perceived ATF abuses.

You must have missed it, here it is for you again, do not ask again.In hearings before ATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of ATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations

You're kidding, right? Submission is not a demonstration of fact.What was the conclusion of the committee hearing? Did they find the ATF at fault?

Or you can just admit that you didn't read it.

I'm the one that linked it you rube.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

Always Think Forfeiture

I know you linked it, that is why I have asked a half a dozen times for you to tell me what the conclusions of the committee were. The fact that you linked it and can't tell me the conclusions of the committee (i,e, whether the ATF was found to be at fault or not) makes me think you linked something you didn't bother to thoroughly read (if you read it at all).

Click that link..scroll down to "ATF during the 2000's" read that 1 sentence and the 1 paragraph that follows it. The document is used as a footnote [26], I can't spoon feed you anymore than that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

It will never be an issue, take that to the bank.

And the reason for that is the opposition that is being ridiculed for fighting against it right? Lending credence to the argument some of us are making.. Do you not agree?

If no one opposed a partial, or entire ban on guns, don't you think we'd have a partial or entire ban on guns?

If "ifs and buts" were "candies and nuts" we'd all have a merry Christmas.

It will never happen, but there is a position that reasonable people can achieve that will satisfy gun owners and help save lives of innocent victims of gun violence. That is what we need to be working towards.

You didn't answer the question

I agree something can and should be done, but I don't believe that something is new gun legislation. Attack the causes of violence, decrease violence as a whole, and naturally gun violence will decrease.

And maybe, just maybe, start enforcing the laws we already have.

 

[Spanky267]

I doubt it will cost more than a few billion. Maybe not that much. But even if it did, it would be well worth it. Anyhow, since I don't own any guns, I wouldn't have to pay for it.

So which constitutional rights do you not support imposing fees on to excercise?

Almost all constitutional rights cost money in one form or another. You want to exercise your right to freedom of speech by walking around with posters that are going to anger other people? More police are required to protect you. Why shouldn't you pay for them? In this case somebody has to pay for the "well-regulated" part. I think it should be the gun-owners.

Negative ghost rider. We don't specifically pay for police protection in order to exercise our first amendment rights. You don't have to pay a fee before you exercise that right. You don't have to pay a fee to register to vote or to cast a ballot. You are explicitly proposing a "tax" to exercise a constitutional right.

 

[Spanky267]

FBI: The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.

Don't like the 24 hour NCIS law to destroy all identifying information so as to prevent a federal firearm registry from being built? Keep blaming the NRA for pointing this out as it was outlined in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Thats because section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system, and it prohibits the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions of those who pass the background check.

Personally I don't care whether it's Brady or the NRA to blame. Not having a federal firearm registry is a bad idea. We should change the laws and have one.

I wouldn't oppose a national registration if I felt like it would do any good and not just be a waste of time and money. What benefit do you actually think the federal gov. will get out of having a registry if you are not going to limit the person too how many they can have?

So that if a gun is used in a crime, we can trace it back to it's owner.

So, you have to assume that the gun is left at the scene of the crime, that it was not stolen, or that it was even registered. How will this reduce the amount of gun violence?

My goal is to eliminate all guns that are not registered. What we want to do is make it much more difficult for the bad guys to get guns. The only way I can see to do this is to register all guns and create a national database.

I don't see how we can't do this with a gun ownership license. You have a gun, you better have a license or the gun is confiscated and you go to jail. Requirement to get a license? A hunting license for long guns. Saftey and self defense course for protection gun.

that's all fine. But if a crime is committed with a gun, then we should be able to trace the gun back to its most recent legal owner. How to do this without a national database?

This essentially already exists in an informal way. Any gun purchased through a licensed dealer has all of its data and the purchasers data captured by the FFL. How do youthink that the Federal Authorities knew that Adam Lanza's mother legally owned her weapons. When you buy a gun from a dealer, you go through the background check. Once the check comes back and the purchase can proceed the dealer records the serial number of the weapon, its type and caliber and all of your personal details. If its a rifle or shotgun you can take it home the same day. If its a handgun you have the 3 business day waiting period before you can take the gun. The dealer keeps that paperwork basically forever. If that firearm is used in a crime, once it is recovered the law enforcement agency can call the manufacturer to find out who they sold it to. From there the police can contact who the manufacturer sold it to. Normally a large wholesaler or a licensed dealer. Then the police can find our who that dealer sold the gun to and thats when the knock comes on your door to ask about the gun. So while not a direct national registry there is a way for the police to track down who owns a legally owned gun.

Yeah, except for all of the private transfers of guns that are not recorded. It's a loophole that allows gun crime to continue.

Private transfers are a small portion of the guns that are used in crimes. Straw purchasers are the real place where guns used in crimes come from. Please tell me how we completely eliminate or greatly reduce straw purchases? This is where we can make the most in roads but its also difficult to stop.

 

[mad sweeney]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

 

[5 digit know nothing]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

I'm just going to waste space in this thread, complain when people paste a few dozen quotes from people in authority that want to ban all guns, post "BS" smilie faces when people comment on said quotes, and offer zero substance to the conversaion. -MadSweeney

 

[otello]

So when you factor in all of these stolen weapons, all of the guns that are untraceable for the reasons above (and I assume most criminals remove the serial number), the fact that juvenile offenders were more than twice as likely to have a semiautomatic weapon at a crime scene than a adult offender (hint: they didn't legally acquire it) and the expected low compliance resulting from an attempted national registry and you are left with butkus. A national gun registry turns into a giant witch hunt, and an expensive one at that while doing nothing to curb gun violence.

This is just the height of illogical thinking. So much so that I have to wonder if it isn't deliberate. How many thousands of hit and runs are there every year? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't force people to register their cars or have license plates, because (a) the people that hit and run are going to do it anyhow (b) it's therefore an added unnecessary burden on law abiding car owners, and © who knows? Someday the government might decide to seize all cars. How many thousands of rapes are there every year in which the rapist gets away scot free? Yet, according to this logic, we shouldn't even investigate rapes; it's a waste of money because they'll never catch them anyhow, and it's a burden on law-abiding citizens. You guys can produce all of the numbers you want. They mean absolutely nothing. I guarantee you that if we had a national database of all legally owned firearms in this country, gun crime would go down significantly. Period. Even having unified background checks WITHOUT the database, which is all the latest gun proposal tried to do, would cause a decrease in crime. But even that you guys were against, because you're still afraid of the big bad government. You can make all the reasonable sounding arguments you want, and produce all of the meaningless statistics you want, but it still in the end comes down to your paranoia.

This national database would only be as good as the data in it and the skills of the people maintaining and analyzing the data. As you know, there are more guns than people in the US so this would be a massive database, like Amazon.com big and would almost certainly cost billions to create, launch and maintain. Yet only a very small portion of that data might actually be useful to investigators. Most guns used in a crime are 10 years old on average and so tens of millions of them wouldn't be in the database, nor would most of the names of the criminals. I think it would be difficult to come up with a more expensive and more useless collection of data to aid in the prevention of crime. Even Canada's much smaller national firearms registry cost them over $2 billion with huge cost overruns and it ultimately didn't work. This would be an extremely expensive and mostly ineffective electronic bridge to nowhere if the stated purpose was gun crime reduction. But you'd definitely know about all the law abiding gun owners and their weapons, whatever that's good for. So I'm not against this because I'm some gun nut, I'm against this because it's a ####### stupid giant waste of money on the level of the Iraq war waste. The government would spend billions to create a giant haystack to find needles that weren't in the haystack. Brilliant!

This sounds like another case of allowing the perfect to interfere with the good. No system will be perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Choose any law you support, is it perfect? Of course not but you still want it in place. And I don't think it will be a logistically difficult as you are making it out to be. Amazon, your example, has to deal with transaction and distribution information this is merely a queryable database. That is not nearly on the same level. And speaking to the point of how many guns there are in this country, we are probably the most well armed country that is not currently undergoing a civil war but we still have a serious problem with gun violence.

This is exactly right. The supposition that this will cost billions, in our internet age, is ridiculous. There are 300 million guns in this country. Listing them all on a database is a fairly easy and inexpensive proposition.No matter what they tell you, their main reason for being opposed to this is a paranoid fear of the government.

Easy and inexpensive? Has any study on the costs and ease of this been done? I would think that it would be be quite a task to put 300M guns into a federal database.

 

[mad sweeney]

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Rosie O'Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state."

Michael Dukakis

"If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all."

U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea ... Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

"Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog."

Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"

John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step."

Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed."

Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."

Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."

U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."

Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes

interview.

"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."

Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun."

Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think - I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means."

William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, andeventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases."

U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,

1991.

"I don't believe gun owners have rights."

Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report "Handguns in America", October

1997

"We must get rid of all the guns."

Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on "The Phil

Donahue Show" September 1994

"The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I'm just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough."

Sarah Brady 7/1/88

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..."

U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

"My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns."

U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal."

Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker' magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

"Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun."

President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times

12/6/93 p.A1

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned...We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them."

The Washington Post - "Legal Guns Kill Too" - November 5, 1999

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution."

USA Today - Michael Gartner - Former president of NBC News - "Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?" - January 16, 1992

"I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns," Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, 2012

" 4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations."

Legislation introduced in Missouri.2013 And you can repeat the exact same thing for Minnesota

"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective." NIJ Memo on a new "Assault Weapon" Ban. 2013

"The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection" (Warrantless searches by law enforcement?) Washington State Senate Bill 5737 (2013)

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla)2013

California Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to includeALL semi-auto rifles (including rimfire calibers) that accept a detachable magazine. SB374 would ban on the sale and possession of ALL Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Senate Bill 47 (Yee 2013) would expand the definition of “Assault Weapons” to include rifles that have been designed/sold and or equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device. SB47 wouldban on the sale and possession of ALL those Semi-Auto rifles and require registration to retain legal possession in the future.

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes.Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest. Passage of AB174 would make SB374/SB47 (above) into confiscation mandates.

California Senate Bill 396 (Hancock 2013) would ban the possession of any magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 cartridges. ALL currently grandfathered “high-cap” magazines would become ILLEGAL to possess and the owners subject to arrest and the magazines confiscated.("High-cap" means a capacity that has been standard, that the firearms were designed for, since the 40's--AK pattern rifles--or 60's--AR pattern rifles.)

“We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it...We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.”

Illinois Rep Jan Schakowsky says assault rifle ban just the beginning, ‘moment of opportunity’ and seeks to ban handguns (2013).

"People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed." Colorado Senator (Majority Leader) John Morse. 2013 (Cleansed? "Final Solution" anyone?)

(Emphasis added in the above).

But nobody wants to take our guns?

This is scary stuff in my opinion.. You guys should read and understand the real objective.. This is not about "just knowing who has guns" These folks do want to take guns from the public..

I don't want anyone to take guns from the public and I would fight to prevent that. But honestly I have zero concern that will ever happen. Not in America, we are the most armed nation, that is not currently involved in a civil war, in the world. We love our guns far to much to ever allow that to happen.

Chaka, I'd rather you were the person we had to be worried about... The above quotes show that many in the media, many holding celebrity status, and many in higher positions of power/our government don't agree with you.. They are in a much stronger position when it comes to swaying public opinion and enacting new legislation..

Maybe it will never be an issue.. But I firmly believe that the folks fighting the good fight against this reckless and unreasonable legislation are the reason for that. So, when people that stand up for the rights of gun owners are attacked by the 'anti-gun' crowd, and ridiculed because "no one is trying to take your guns" and "that would never happen in the USA", I find it rather short sighted and/or disingenuous.. Because without those people and their opposition, we'd be on the road to that unwanted and unreasonable invasion of our 2nd amendment rights..

Don't give those jokers an inch...

I'm just going to waste space in this thread, complain when people paste a few dozen quotes from people in authority that want to ban all guns, post "BS" smilie faces when people comment on said quotes, and offer zero substance to the conversaion. -MadSweeney

I'm going to do just what Sweeney said I was going to do when I got called out for doing what I complained about other people doing, and my complaints will be wrong to boot. FINAL SOLUTION!!!!!!!! - 5 Didgiot

hint: there was no "complaint" about you pasting things, simply pointing out the hypocrisy, and the smiley was for the final two sentences of Coward Hustler's statement, not that he commented on it. HTH (but it won't)

 

[smotherhook]

We are arguing over one of many tools of violence rather than causes..

They don't care about causes.

That is a stupid comment.

What are your solutions? You gonna jump on Carolina's insight or throw out something else?

Actually I have not seen you even comment about whether you even think there is a problem to begin with.

You have offered zero solutions. If you don't understand what the causes are you can't come up with a viable solution.

At this point, the main cause is opposition by people like you to reasonable gun control measures.

The cause's of violence and suicide are people like 5 digit who oppose additional gun control?

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

A young person may commit suicide because they are disliked and picked on at school, or their boyfriend cheats on them, or their family is falling apart..

A gang banger may attack someone for owing them money, or invading their turf, or giving them nasty looks, etc..

The list goes on and on.. I can find many real causes why violence or suicide are committed, you can't seem to accurately find one...

Yes, the cause of violence are people like 5 digit and yourself. A significant portion of all guns used in crimes are obtained illegally through private sales. We tried to close the loophole that allowed it, and you guys opposed it due to your paranoid fears of gun seizure.

you do know guns were seized from law abiding citizens after hurrican katrina? The vast majority have never been returned.

 

[timschochet]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.

Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

In this case somebody has to pay for the "well-regulated" part. I think it should be the gun-owners.

Probably the dumbest thing posted by Tim in this thread.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

I stand corrected

 

[jwp]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears. Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

Spot on.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a few compromise ideas:

We give you an optional private-party background check system which individuals can use directly (not through an FFL), if suppressors are no longer considered NFA items: purchaseable, buildable, shippable without government involvement.

If you want something more than my optional solution then you would need to give us CCW reciprocity with compliance with the TSA, CBP and similar organizations to make travel with a firearm less onerous.

Other bargaining chips on your table:

federal ban on "may issue" permitting, requiring all municipalities to have a CCW program and that it must be "shall issue". "May issue" is an inherently biased unfair system and allows the issuer to be as racist, sexist, ageist, or any other -ist they choose, with no recourse.

 

[Jobber]

So apparently we only have libertarian gun owners in these parts and none of the Fox and Friends gun toting masses who believe in suspension of Miranda Rights, elimination of due process, illegal search and seizure etc. etc. when it is used against people they don't like.

I applaud all the libertarian gun owners in this thread. I'm not sure I believe you all but I will try to accept it at face value.

And how many times do I need to say that I am a gun owning supporter of the second amendment before it sinks in? When the government comes to take my guns I will be in lock step with all of you to oppose them but taking measures to try to prevent the massive amount of gun violence in this country is not unreasonable.

I really hate calling them libertarian. Let's see if they're in favor of open immigration, free trade and a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. If they're in favor of all that, then I'll be willing to grant them the title.

Yes to all of the above. And I'm pro-legalization as well (Marijuana that is).

 

[timschochet]

Here's a few compromise ideas:

We give you an optional private-party background check system which individuals can use directly (not through an FFL), if suppressors are no longer considered NFA items: purchaseable, buildable, shippable without government involvement.

If you want something more than my optional solution then you would need to give us CCW reciprocity with compliance with the TSA, CBP and similar organizations to make travel with a firearm less onerous.

Other bargaining chips on your table:

federal ban on "may issue" permitting, requiring all municipalities to have a CCW program and that it must be "shall issue". "May issue" is an inherently biased unfair system and allows the issuer to be as racist, sexist, ageist, or any other -ist they choose, with no recourse.

I was going to agree and commend you for being willing to compromise, until I noticed that the background check system would be "optional". Nice try.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Here's a few compromise ideas:

We give you an optional private-party background check system which individuals can use directly (not through an FFL), if suppressors are no longer considered NFA items: purchaseable, buildable, shippable without government involvement.

If you want something more than my optional solution then you would need to give us CCW reciprocity with compliance with the TSA, CBP and similar organizations to make travel with a firearm less onerous.

Other bargaining chips on your table:

federal ban on "may issue" permitting, requiring all municipalities to have a CCW program and that it must be "shall issue". "May issue" is an inherently biased unfair system and allows the issuer to be as racist, sexist, ageist, or any other -ist they choose, with no recourse.

I was going to agree and commend you for being willing to compromise, until I noticed that the background check system would be "optional". Nice try.

Stepping stone. We all know something optional can be made mandatory in the future, once your side gives up something of substantial value to actually make it considered a compromise, the progun side has made enough compromises over history. Give us back machine guns without the ridiculous NFA tax stamp for example.

 

[timschochet]

Here's a few compromise ideas:

We give you an optional private-party background check system which individuals can use directly (not through an FFL), if suppressors are no longer considered NFA items: purchaseable, buildable, shippable without government involvement.

If you want something more than my optional solution then you would need to give us CCW reciprocity with compliance with the TSA, CBP and similar organizations to make travel with a firearm less onerous.

Other bargaining chips on your table:

federal ban on "may issue" permitting, requiring all municipalities to have a CCW program and that it must be "shall issue". "May issue" is an inherently biased unfair system and allows the issuer to be as racist, sexist, ageist, or any other -ist they choose, with no recourse.

I was going to agree and commend you for being willing to compromise, until I noticed that the background check system would be "optional". Nice try.

Stepping stone. We all know something optional can be made mandatory in the future, once your side gives up something of substantial value to actually make it considered a compromise, the progun side has made enough compromises over history. Give us back machine guns without the ridiculous NFA tax stamp for example.

Actually, I would personally give you almost everything you're asking for without any quid pro quo.

 

[Spanky267]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

The, "they are going to take our guns" crowd is vocal but small. However if you look at the comments made by Susan Brady and other members of the Brady Campaign their goal is out right bans on all firearms. So to say that there arent some legitimate concerns that our rights could be infringed through incremental changes to firearms laws is not unwarranted.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

The, "they are going to take our guns" crowd is vocal but small. However if you look at the comments made by Susan Brady and other members of the Brady Campaign their goal is out right bans on all firearms. So to say that there arent some legitimate concerns that our rights could be infringed through incremental changes to firearms laws is not unwarranted.

It's not just Susan Brady - it's pretty much any Democrat leader right now (someone posted those comments earlier in this thread). What I find incredulous is the posters here who ignore those remarks yet still call gun owners crazy for thinking that people want to take their guns.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

There are many in our government who were quoted in this very thread as wanting to take our guns away.. Much like many other things that have been forced down our throats to this point..

 

[mad sweeney]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

The, "they are going to take our guns" crowd is vocal but small. However if you look at the comments made by Susan Brady and other members of the Brady Campaign their goal is out right bans on all firearms. So to say that there arent some legitimate concerns that our rights could be infringed through incremental changes to firearms laws is not unwarranted.

It's not just Susan Brady - it's pretty much any Democrat leader right now (someone posted those comments earlier in this thread). What I find incredulous is the posters here who ignore those remarks yet still call gun owners crazy for thinking that people want to take their guns.

Because there's a gigantic difference between people saying what they want to do and it actually happening. You can look at the reality of the last AW bill as an example. It's akin to all the idiots worrying about passing anti-Sharia bills before Sharia gets into our laws. Not gonna happen.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

The, "they are going to take our guns" crowd is vocal but small. However if you look at the comments made by Susan Brady and other members of the Brady Campaign their goal is out right bans on all firearms. So to say that there arent some legitimate concerns that our rights could be infringed through incremental changes to firearms laws is not unwarranted.

It's not just Susan Brady - it's pretty much any Democrat leader right now (someone posted those comments earlier in this thread). What I find incredulous is the posters here who ignore those remarks yet still call gun owners crazy for thinking that people want to take their guns.

Because there's a gigantic difference between people saying what they want to do and it actually happening. You can look at the reality of the last AW bill as an example. It's akin to all the idiots worrying about passing anti-Sharia bills before Sharia gets into our laws. Not gonna happen.

Again - someone posted all of the comments from Democrat leaders and you're still saying there is no cause for concern? Really? I find that amazing that those comments are deliberately made to rile people up and when the people get riled up you come back and say "Don't worry"?

Listen - the fact of the matter is the left controls most of the government now so I think its very valid that people are concerned about this.

 

[mad sweeney]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

The, "they are going to take our guns" crowd is vocal but small. However if you look at the comments made by Susan Brady and other members of the Brady Campaign their goal is out right bans on all firearms. So to say that there arent some legitimate concerns that our rights could be infringed through incremental changes to firearms laws is not unwarranted.

It's not just Susan Brady - it's pretty much any Democrat leader right now (someone posted those comments earlier in this thread). What I find incredulous is the posters here who ignore those remarks yet still call gun owners crazy for thinking that people want to take their guns.

Because there's a gigantic difference between people saying what they want to do and it actually happening. You can look at the reality of the last AW bill as an example. It's akin to all the idiots worrying about passing anti-Sharia bills before Sharia gets into our laws. Not gonna happen.

Again - someone posted all of the comments from Democrat leaders and you're still saying there is no cause for concern? Really? I find that amazing that those comments are deliberately made to rile people up and when the people get riled up you come back and say "Don't worry"?

Listen - the fact of the matter is the left controls most of the government now so I think its very valid that people are concerned about this.

Yeah, that's why the assault weapon bill flew through Congress and is going into effect, right? There were an awful lot of big Lefties supporting that one after Sandy Hook, and look where it got us. Oh wait, nothing happened?

Yeah, there's no cause for concern just like there isn't when Bachmann brings up the 50th challenge to Obamacare or Tennessee Senators want to pass anti Sharia laws as if foreign laws could supercede the Constitution. It's a bunch of lip flapping for the paranoid whackos to cut and paste and say "See!" even though no real change whatsoever has ever or will ever come from it, much less the "Final Solution" bull#### commentary that 5Didgiot slapped up as "proof".

 

[MaxThreshold]

Probably the most ironic aspect of the paranoid fear that all guns will be seized in order to establish a dictatorship is the fact that, historically, dictatorships are established not as a result of gun seizures, but as a result of paranoid fears.Those who promulgate this irrational fear of the government taking their rights away are doing far more to weaken the structure of our society, and thus ultimately endanger our freedoms, than our government ever could.

The, "they are going to take our guns" crowd is vocal but small. However if you look at the comments made by Susan Brady and other members of the Brady Campaign their goal is out right bans on all firearms. So to say that there arent some legitimate concerns that our rights could be infringed through incremental changes to firearms laws is not unwarranted.

It's not just Susan Brady - it's pretty much any Democrat leader right now (someone posted those comments earlier in this thread). What I find incredulous is the posters here who ignore those remarks yet still call gun owners crazy for thinking that people want to take their guns.

Because there's a gigantic difference between people saying what they want to do and it actually happening. You can look at the reality of the last AW bill as an example. It's akin to all the idiots worrying about passing anti-Sharia bills before Sharia gets into our laws. Not gonna happen.

Again - someone posted all of the comments from Democrat leaders and you're still saying there is no cause for concern? Really? I find that amazing that those comments are deliberately made to rile people up and when the people get riled up you come back and say "Don't worry"?

Listen - the fact of the matter is the left controls most of the government now so I think its very valid that people are concerned about this.

Yeah, that's why the assault weapon bill flew through Congress and is going into effect, right? There were an awful lot of big Lefties supporting that one after Sandy Hook, and look where it got us. Oh wait, nothing happened?

Yeah, there's no cause for concern just like there isn't when Bachmann brings up the 50th challenge to Obamacare or Tennessee Senators want to pass anti Sharia laws as if foreign laws could supercede the Constitution. It's a bunch of lip flapping for the paranoid whackos to cut and paste and say "See!" even though no real change whatsoever has ever or will ever come from it, much less the "Final Solution" bull#### commentary that 5Didgiot slapped up as "proof".

Doesn't mean the left isn't going to give up trying to eliminate guns (it's directly from their own mouths). Until that happens, expect concerned citizens to continue to be...well...concerned.