Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Heathen Hammer]

Asking for ATF to be allowed to have a searchable digital gun registry database is obsession to disarm the population?

Background checks are already a thing, so its simply not necessary. Not to mention privacy concerns. So yes, it is irrational to want something like that.

[Coughdrop addict]

So HH, is not wanting to be shot or have our family members killed in mass shootings "irrational" on the right now?

[Heathen Hammer]

It is rational to want to be able to defend yourself (since no gun control would prevent criminals and psychos from committing violence with firearms or otherwise, just look at knife massacres in China), what is irrational is disarming potential victims. As I mentioned before, gun control is simply an irrational luxury belief of people that scoff at the idea that one may need to defend himself. When rich liberal appartchiks express it I understand, at the end of the day they already have security detail guarding their lavish properties in gated white-only neighborhoods and they don't want the "poors" to become "uppity". But anyone outside that demographic throwing one's hat for that is simply voting against one's own interests.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/coving...five-news-orgs

Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic high schooler who sued eight national news organizations for defamation, has lost the five remaining lawsuits, a judge ruled Wednesday. The Trump supporter became infamous for standing in front of Native American activist Nathan Phillips as Phillips was beating a drum and peacefully protesting at the Lincoln Memorial in January 2019. Sandmann sued the news companies claiming they wrongfully characterized him as blocking and intimidating Phillips and made him the face of racist high school students harassing protesters that day in D.C. The judge ruled that Sandmann’s legal arguments held no merit and it would be a waste of time to take the suits to trial. “The media defendants were covering a matter of great public interest, and they reported Phillips’s first-person view of what he experienced. This would put the reader on notice that Phillips was simply giving his perspective on the incident. Therefore, in the factual context of this case, Phillips’ ‘blocking’ statements are protected opinions. This holding moots all other motions before the Court,” the judge wrote.

Now that he can't just sue people for his income Sandmann is facing his worst nightmare, having to get a job.

[PointOfViewGun]

Background checks are already a thing, so its simply not necessary. Not to mention privacy concerns. So yes, it is irrational to want something like that.

I did not refer to the background checks. That's an other issue that is quite distinct from ATF's gun registry. Having background checks in any form has no bearing on the gun registry. You are so damn far from what you think you're discussing.

[Heathen Hammer]

Why does ATF need a gun registry and how would that prevent psychos from massive acts of violence? It seems like you don't even know what you are arguing for.

[PointOfViewGun]

Why does ATF need a gun registry and how would that prevent psychos from massive acts of violence? It seems like you don't even know what you are arguing for.

Oh, I do know what I'm talking about. I suspect you also know it very well which is why you try to derail it so much. ATF's gun registry is where guns are checked for ownership for any particular crime. It's one tool in fighting against criminals more efficient. Yet, the obsession of lawmakers with guns has the audacity to even outlaw making that more efficient. It simply illustrates how pathetic their approach is. It makes talking about more efficient background checks or mental health checks that exist in most, if not all, modern countries quite futile.

[Heathen Hammer]

Of course, because criminals never forget to register their guns with ATF before going on a drive-by lol.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course, because criminals never forget to register their guns with ATF before going on a drive-by lol.

Or, most, if not all, guns start as registered guns which helps the authorities to track a gun involved in a crime.

[Heathen Hammer]

Which doesn't do much since it takes basic garage hardware to remove serial numbers and such, which is illegal to possess for anyone, but criminals do for that exact reason.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://thehill.com/changing-america...l-orientation/

To paraphrase Lord Thesaurian, fascists on suicide watch.

[Forward Observer]

Or, most, if not all, guns start as registered guns which helps the authorities to track a gun involved in a crime.

No, they do not. However, maybe you have your terms confused. In the US, the term "registered gun" means one that is recorded by some government agency in connection with a particular owner. This has been done on a state or local level but not federal with one exception. The exception is for NFA firearms--basically any firearm such as a machine gun, short barreled rifle, or silencer attachment which are all covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934. One has to purchase a federal stamp to own any of these devices.

Maybe you are using the term "registered" to describe the comprehensive lists of manufacturer's serial numbers which are provided to the NTC division of the ATF. All guns produced in this day and age are required to have a serial number and those records are maintained by the manufacturers who provide the ATF with those numbers on a regular basis. In some cases the manufacturers store this info in a cloud based system to which the NTC has direct access. When a serial number needs to be traced the NTC should have, or be able to obtain, the data to know who manufactured the gun and possibly to what company it was wholesaled to. They may have to manually contact the distributor and most certainly then will have to contact the individual gun store that sold the gun. The gun store/FFL maintains the records of the individual who initially purchased the gun and the store is the only entity that normally maintains these records. They are required to keep those sales records for 20 years. After that point they may destroy them. To repeat---individual sales records are maintained by the individual seller and not the ATF nor any other federal agency.

National Tracing Center of the ATF

In other words, this has nothing to do with a federal registration. i.e., a comprehensive list of numbers and owners. It is a violation of federal law for the ATF or any federal agency to maintain any sort of permanent registry of firearms sales to individuals. (NFA items excluded)

The above link to the NTC page at the ATF makes tracking sound relatively simple but it is not. As long as a crime was committed with a weapon manufactured since 1968 and sold by an FFL in the last 20 years, tracking might be fairly easy. Outside of those parameters it begins to get harder.

By law the FFL's have to make their sales records accessible to the ATF for periodic inspection or as needed for an investigation. A big issue with such a system is that for small gun shops much of this data is not kept electronically but is instead simply kept in hard copy ledger books. If a store goes out of business their FFL records are supposed to be turned over to the ATF but the ATF is not allowed to computerize them. However if the store is destroyed or damaged due to fire or flood much of this info may be lost or simply rendered unusable. Thus the "out of business" sales records are not easy to search and ultimately not that complete.

Another issue is that there are literally millions and millions of perfectly functional fairly modern firearms in the public domain that were sold and resold at least for the first half of the 20th century long before the gun control act of 1968 which first established the FFL system.

There were no licensing requirements whatsoever prior to 1968 nor was there even a legal requirement for a serial number. (NFA items being the only exception as already mentioned) Any business could sell firearms if they so desired. Most manufacturers started using serial numbers in the latter half of the 19th century but then many went out of business long before the ATF came along.


To summarize---US Federal law prohibits any federal agency from maintaining a permanent firearms registry. Manufacturer's serial number records, even if they include some distributor destinations, do not constitute a firearms registry.

The law banning any kind of federally maintained registry was codified as part of the Firearms Owner Protection act of 1986. This was part of a group of new firearms laws passed that year. Another notable law from this act prohibited the sale of any fully automatic firearms to the general public manufactured after the date of the Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm Owners_Protection_Act


The basic reasoning behind this is the fact that any kind of national firearms registry could lead, and has historically more than once led to, abuse by an over reaching government. The point being that it is the first step needed--and probably the only practical way in the US at least, to make any future confiscation possible.

A perfect historical example of such abuse, among others, would be the national firearms registry created by the seemingly benign Weimar republic of Germany shortly after WWI. Unfortunately for the Jews--plus most other non-Arian/political enemies of the state, the regime that followed the Weimar republic was not so benign. The Nazis used this so-called form of gun control to disarm their perceived enemies and undesirables. We all know how that worked out.

https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2019/01-201910313-04Handout.pdf

[PointOfViewGun]

Once "legally sold" could be a better term. Extremely vast majority of guns are produced legally. They have a trace. Criminals do not really create guns out of thin air with no trace whatsoever. The ATF and the ban that governs it is an example to illustrate how the Republicans have an extreme view on gun that makes discussion on most measures futile.

[Forward Observer]

Once "legally sold" could be a better term. Extremely vast majority of guns are produced legally. They have a trace. Criminals do not really create guns out of thin air with no trace whatsoever. The ATF and the ban that governs it is an example to illustrate how the Republicans have an extreme view on gun that makes discussion on most measures futile.

Of course the vast majority of guns are produced legally. I never stated otherwise.

I just wanted to clarify two main points.

1. That the ATF is bound by federal law and is not allowed to maintain any kind of registry. They don't get to make laws, they are bound by the constitution and any laws passed by our legislative bodies.

2. That there are millions and millions of guns that are untraceable. Guns are very durable tools and can last a very long time. Yes, most have a serial numbers but millions were put into circulation long before most of our gun control laws were passed. In other words nobody knows where they are, who owns them, nor how many times they have changed hands in legal private unrecorded transactions by people living or deceased.


Anyway as to your comment about Republicans. Here is the voting record on the subject bill

While the Republicans controlled the senate when the Gun owners protection act of 1986 was first voted on by that body in 1985, a majority of Senate Democrats (30 out of 43 voting) voted for the bill

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s142

By the next year when the house voted on the bill, the Democrats were in control of that body but still a slight majority of Democrats voted for the bill (131 out of 246 voting democrats)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h508

Thus, it was a essentially a bipartisan bill at the time or it would not have passed.

Fortunately, we are after all a constitutional republic and not a pure Democracy. Unfortunately, politicians today on both sides seem to selectively remember and forget their oath to protect our constitution when it suits their needs. Biden has proven to be one of the most dishonest at this.

Below are some idiotic lies about guns and the 2nd amendment that Biden has repeated numerous times on camera in just the last few months

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-k...-wrong-1711917

A 9mm will blow out a lung. No Joe, it's a common handgun cartridge used by most law enforcement around the world and not a high power rifle cartridge.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Yes Joe, something that is referred to as an inalienable right is usually pretty absolute.

When the 2nd amendment was passed you couldn't own a cannon. Yes Joe, you could. There were no laws what so ever preventing anyone from owning a cannon when the constitution and bill of rights were ratified and you can still own a cannon today. I have owned several and still have a full size Coehorn mortar setting out in my garage. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it. I also have numerous small scale cannons with bores up to an inch or larger--mostly muzzle loaders but also a couple of breech loaders

So much for Biden's claim to be a constitutional scholar. It also proves that he knows diddly squat about firearms and history.

Personally, I want my politicians and legislators to have some basic knowledge about the very things they are trying to legislate on.

I don't want someone who is afraid of flying in a position of legislating on law concerning the use of aircraft.
Likewise, I also don't want someone who is afraid of guns in a position of legislating on their use or ownership. I don't think that is such a radical idea--do you?

Unfortunately we have too many of the latter now in congress exhibiting an extreme lack of common sense. In fact, the term "common sense gun laws" becomes in effect an oxymoron when used by most politicians in today's world.

[swabian]

Of course the vast majority of guns are produced legally. I never stated otherwise.

I just wanted to clarify two main points.

1. That the ATF is bound by federal law and is not allowed to maintain any kind of registry. They don't get to make laws, they are bound by the constitution and any laws passed by our legislative bodies.

2. That there are millions and millions of guns that are untraceable. Guns are very durable tools and can last a very long time. Yes, most have a serial numbers but millions were put into circulation long before most of our gun control laws were passed. In other words nobody knows where they are, who owns them, nor how many times they have changed hands in legal private unrecorded transactions by people living or deceased.


Anyway as to your comment about Republicans. Here is the voting record on the subject bill

While the Republicans controlled the senate when the Gun owners protection act of 1986 was first voted on by that body in 1985, a majority of Senate Democrats (30 out of 43 voting) voted for the bill

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s142

By the next year when the house voted on the bill, the Democrats were in control of that body but still a slight majority of Democrats voted for the bill (131 out of 246 voting democrats)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h508

Thus, it was a essentially a bipartisan bill at the time or it would not have passed.

Fortunately, we are after all a constitutional republic and not a pure Democracy. Unfortunately, politicians today on both sides seem to selectively remember and forget their oath to protect our constitution when it suits their needs. Biden has proven to be one of the most dishonest at this.

Below are some idiotic lies about guns and the 2nd amendment that Biden has repeated numerous times on camera in just the last few months

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-k...-wrong-1711917

A 9mm will blow out a lung. No Joe, it's a common handgun cartridge used by most law enforcement around the world and not a high power rifle cartridge.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Yes Joe, something that is referred to as an inalienable right is usually pretty absolute.

When the 2nd amendment was passed you couldn't own a cannon. Yes Joe, you could. There were no laws what so ever preventing anyone from owning a cannon when the constitution and bill of rights were ratified and you can still own a cannon today. I have owned several and still have a full size Coehorn mortar setting out in my garage. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it. I also have numerous small scale cannons with bores up to an inch or larger--mostly muzzle loaders but also a couple of breech loaders

So much for Biden's claim to be a constitutional scholar. It also proves that he knows diddly squat about firearms and history.

Personally, I want my politicians and legislators to have some basic knowledge about the very things they are trying to legislate on.

I don't want someone who is afraid of flying in a position of legislating on law concerning the use of aircraft.
Likewise, I also don't want someone who is afraid of guns in a position of legislating on their use or ownership. I don't think that is such a radical idea--do you?

Unfortunately we have too many of the latter now in congress exhibiting an extreme lack of common sense. In fact, the term "common sense gun laws" becomes in effect an oxymoron when used by most politicians in today's world.

Look, bro. The topic is not actually about guns.

[Forward Observer]

Look, bro. The topic is not actually about guns.

Yes, but this thread was started by Alhoon and for several pages prior to post 1245 the topic was abortion. That also was not the topic of the thread but is was discussed for many pages.

However, with post 1246, Alhoon himself interjected a post about gun deaths for children. I didn't address that post although the information provided by his link was totally wrong.

I made my first post at 1292 or 46 posts later. In the meantime, 38 of those interim 46 posts were related to gun issues in one form or another. I didn't change the subject but I did finally try interject some actual linked information rather than the usual unsupported hypotheticals posted by others

I would submit that I am only following the current topic trend.


Cheers

[PointOfViewGun]

Anyway as to your comment about Republicans. Here is the voting record on the subject bill
While the Republicans controlled the senate when the Gun owners protection act of 1986 was first voted on by that body in 1985, a majority of Senate Democrats (30 out of 43 voting) voted for the bill
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1985/s142
By the next year when the house voted on the bill, the Democrats were in control of that body but still a slight majority of Democrats voted for the bill (131 out of 246 voting democrats)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/99-1986/h508
Thus, it was a essentially a bipartisan bill at the time or it would not have passed.

The numbers shows that Democrats were divided on the issue back then while Republicans were for it as a block. I was largely referring to the Republicans of today though. Can you say with confidence that they would allow ATF to have a modern record keeping system as well as the requirement to collect information on all gun sales?

[Forward Observer]

The numbers shows that Democrats were divided on the issue back then while Republicans were for it as a block. I was largely referring to the Republicans of today though. Can you say with confidence that they would allow ATF to have a modern record keeping system as well as the requirement to collect information on all gun sales?

No, sorry to say I can't due to the current polarization of the two parties. Both parties tend to vote as a block these days, so it becomes who has the majority in both houses. Democratic senators Manchin and Sinema who come from largely red states have helped the Republicans in the senate up until now. Fortunately the polls are pretty much predicting a red wave in the house this coming November so there is some hope for the right on the horizon.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Meanwhile:

https://twitter.com/Xaniken/status/1553758094404075525

Wonder what the profit margin is there. Kek. #BigGovernmentSucks

[Heathen Hammer]

I mean you don't even need a 3d printer, just some pipes, metal scrap and you can sell single-shot shotguns that cost less then $20 in materials to make for what, $150?
The sad part is that government will use taxpayer funds to pay all that.