Why do they need to know what guns I own? (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47648549
 

None of those quotes mention the NZ government going into people’s homes and seizing guns. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

None of those quotes mention the NZ government going into people’s homes and seizing guns. 

Thanks. I think I'm done with you on this as it seems you only want to argue. 

If you want to ignore a buyback program where guns are turned in during an amnesty period and then once the amnesty period ends, anyone in possession of a banned weapon would face a fine of up to NZ$4,000 and three years in jail and claim that's still not seizing guns, that's not bait I'm interested in. 



 

[timschochet]

Thanks. I think I'm done with you on this as it seems you only want to argue. 

If you want to ignore a buyback program where guns are turned in during an amnesty period and then once the amnesty period ends, anyone in possession of a banned weapon would face a fine of up to NZ$4,000 and three years in jail and claim that's still not seizing guns, that's not bait I'm interested in. 



I don’t “only want to argue”; I’d much rather find agreement with you. But If I don’t agree, then I feel obligated to point it out. 

Lets backtrack for a bit: this discussion  started based on the claim that gun registration might lead to gun seizures. You found that fear to be reasonable and have offered what New Zealand is doing as proof. But nothing that New Zealand is doing requires gun registration to enforce it. Gun registration is only necessary for gun removal if you’re planning to go house by house and seize them. For what NZ is doing, registration makes no difference. 

Do I believe that we might do what New Zealand is attempting? Sure, it’s possible. We might make certain firearms illegal. We might pass a law that says if you’re caught with them you will face a penalty and they will be taken away. But we will NEVER pass a law that directs the government to search people’s houses and seize guns, and that’s the ONLY reason to supposedly fear gun registration. 

I hope that distinction makes sense. It’s not “bait”; I’m not fishing here. It’s a legitimate point of view and I really believe I’m right about this. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Thanks. I think I'm done with you on this as it seems you only want to argue. 

If you want to ignore a buyback program where guns are turned in during an amnesty period and then once the amnesty period ends, anyone in possession of a banned weapon would face a fine of up to NZ$4,000 and three years in jail and claim that's still not seizing guns, that's not bait I'm interested in. 



At least he didn't post we can't seize guns because people get killed by drunk drivers. 

 

[msommer]

Thanks. I think I'm done with you on this as it seems you only want to argue. 

If you want to ignore a buyback program where guns are turned in during an amnesty period and then once the amnesty period ends, anyone in possession of a banned weapon would face a fine of up to NZ$4,000 and three years in jail and claim that's still not seizing guns, that's not bait I'm interested in. 



No where in your quotes does it state that existing search snd seizure rules would be suspended.

Which kind of would be required to go to every home, search them and seize the illegal guns....

 

[toshiba]

Thanks. I think I'm done with you on this as it seems you only want to argue. 

If you want to ignore a buyback program where guns are turned in during an amnesty period and then once the amnesty period ends, anyone in possession of a banned weapon would face a fine of up to NZ$4,000 and three years in jail and claim that's still not seizing guns, that's not bait I'm interested in. 



I don’t “only want to argue”; I’d much rather find agreement with you. But If I don’t agree, then I feel obligated to point it out. 

Lets backtrack for a bit: this discussion  started based on the claim that gun registration might lead to gun seizures. You found that fear to be reasonable and have offered what New Zealand is doing as proof. But nothing that New Zealand is doing requires gun registration to enforce it. Gun registration is only necessary for gun removal if you’re planning to go house by house and seize them. For what NZ is doing, registration makes no difference. 

Do I believe that we might do what New Zealand is attempting? Sure, it’s possible. We might make certain firearms illegal. We might pass a law that says if you’re caught with them you will face a penalty and they will be taken away. But we will NEVER pass a law that directs the government to search people’s houses and seize guns, and that’s the ONLY reason to supposedly fear gun registration. 

I hope that distinction makes sense. It’s not “bait”; I’m not fishing here. It’s a legitimate point of view and I really believe I’m right about this. 

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

 

[toshiba]

Thanks. I think I'm done with you on this as it seems you only want to argue. 

If you want to ignore a buyback program where guns are turned in during an amnesty period and then once the amnesty period ends, anyone in possession of a banned weapon would face a fine of up to NZ$4,000 and three years in jail and claim that's still not seizing guns, that's not bait I'm interested in. 



No where in your quotes does it state that existing search snd seizure rules would be suspended.

Which kind of would be required to go to every home, search them and seize the illegal guns....

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

 

[Joe Bryant]

At least he didn't post we can't seize guns because people get killed by drunk drivers. 

 I posted the proposed plan as reported by the BBC.

 

[timschochet]

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

It is gun seizure, technically. But it’s not the sort of gun seizure that requires gun registration. That would only be useful if the government is planning on actually going to people’s homes and seizing the guns. 

 

[msommer]

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

Do you think that new laws should only be followed if you like them?

And that if you don't follow them that you still are law abiding?

 

[toshiba]

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

Do you think that new laws should only be followed if you like them?

And that if you don't follow them that you still are law abiding?

Answer mine first.

 

[msommer]

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

No.

This is gun buy back. 

ETA: Now you

 

[toshiba]

Do you not think that a law requiring people to turn in guns is gun seizure?

Do you think that new laws should only be followed if you like them?

And that if you don't follow them that you still are law abiding?

No, laws should be followed.  If you don't follow the laws you are not law abiding.

FYI, I am for gun seizures, both technical and actually going into homes of people who are not law abiding. 

 

[Sheriff Bart]

 I posted the proposed plan as reported by the BBC.

Sorry, reference from other gun thread.  Just trying to lighten the mood GB. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry, reference from other gun thread.  Just trying to lighten the mood GB. 

Thank you.

 

[dkp993]

At least he didn't post we can't seize guns because people get killed by drunk drivers. 

Guns are also no different then a bat or a hammer.  Are we going to seize all the hammers too?

 

[msommer]

Guns are also no different then a bat or a hammer.  Are we going to seize all the hammers too?

If we start registrering guns, what's next? Kitchen knives?

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Homicides in 2017

Rifles - 403 (includes all rifles not just black ones)
Knifes - 1591
Hands, Fists, feet - 692
 

Let's not let statistics get in the way destroying a Constitutionally protected right though.  Seams we could target more important items that are killing people other than ones protected by our Constitution.

link to data -->  https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11.xls

If we start registrering guns, what's next? Kitchen knives?

 

[msommer]

What kind of knives? Those are not just kitchen knives? So not applicable

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Guns are also no different then a bat or a hammer.  Are we going to seize all the hammers too?

If we start registrering guns, what's next? Kitchen knives?

  You've given me a lot to think about.

 

[parrot]

It is gun seizure, technically. But it’s not the sort of gun seizure that requires gun registration. That would only be useful if the government is planning on actually going to people’s homes and seizing the guns. 

Basically they'll seize 'em if they sees 'em.

 

[KCitons]

At least he didn't post we can't seize guns because people get killed by drunk drivers. 

Sorry, reference from other gun thread.  Just trying to lighten the mood GB. 

Thank you.

Not really. He's just trolling. He pops into the other thread occasionally to do the same thing. 

But, it's okay. In his words:

As far as being a  troll, I'm a treasured member of this community, guy.  A folk hero of sorts really.

 

[Thorn]

It is gun seizure, technically. But it’s not the sort of gun seizure that requires gun registration. That would only be useful if the government is planning on actually going to people’s homes and seizing the guns. 

You do not think it could be useful to someday charge people with a crime if the type of gun that was registered was later banned, and one failed to turn it in?  

 

[msommer]

You do not think it could be useful to someday charge people with a crime if the type of gun that was registered was later banned, and one failed to turn it in?  

You mean to charge some criminal with breaking the law?

 

[Thorn]

You mean to charge some criminal with breaking the law?

Right.  Tim's premise: registration only useful if govt plans on going into houses and actually seizing guns.

Seems to me it could be very useful to:

1. Require registration

2. Ban more and more guns over time

3. Criminally charge those who registered a gun but failed to turn it in when it later gets banned.

 

[Thorn]

Thing is, I'm not even against discussing reasonable regulation here.  But this "oh well it's not REAL seizure" is just so intellectually dishonest.  You want to ban some/most/all guns.  Just admit that, and then we can actually have a conversation about a compromise.

 

[Politician Spock]

Guns are also no different then a bat or a hammer.  Are we going to seize all the hammers too?

"Mike Trout steps up to the plate.... he's 1 for 3 today..... Angels down by 1 with a runner on 1st..... wait a minute..... his bat looks odd... the ump wants to take a look at it.... HOLY #### IT'S AN AR-15!!!

 

[Max Power]

Ban guns 2 generations from now.  It is such a simple answer, yet no traction on either side. 

Stop selling ARs.  Current ARs can only be passed to your children.  Offer a 5k buy back program and over time they will fade out.