They want our guns registered

[Rapchizzle]

stole this from another forum

'We want them registered'

Democrats are going after guns

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, announced last week that she wants to register guns. Her next move will be to try to confiscate them.

The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats' coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that "it's a Democratic president, a Democratic House," she responded, "We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered."

Politicians and bureaucrats routinely claim that registration helps solve crimes. If a registered gun is used in a crime and left at the crime scene, registration supposedly lets the police trace the gun back to the criminal. Though this turn of events might work on fictional TV crime shows, it virtually never occurs in real life. Criminals' guns are rarely left at crime scenes. When guns are left behind, it usually is because a crook has been seriously injured or killed and the police are poised to catch him anyway.

The few guns left at crime scenes rarely - if ever - are registered to the perpetrator. If they are registered at all, it is to someone else, whose piece was stolen. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi might think, those who use guns to commit major crimes such as robbing and killing are unlikely to respect her request to file paperwork so the government can catalog the tools of their trade.

Numerous examples disprove gun-control propaganda. Hawaii has had licensing and registration of guns for about 50 years. After all of the administrative expenses and inconvenience imposed on gun owners, police there cannot point to a single crime that has been solved as a result of those programs. Given Hawaii's remote island geography, this should be an ideal place to keep track of guns because movement in and out of the state is limited and legal importation is controlled. If registration is going to work anywhere, it should work there. Unfortunately, criminals seem to be able to get their hands on guns virtually anyplace in the world.

Other jurisdictions with a history of strict handgun bans, such as the District of Columbia and Chicago, have even required registration of hunting rifles and shotguns for more than 20 years. Neither the District nor Chicago can point to any crimes that have been solved using registration records.

The same rules apply across the border. Canada, which has imposed registration of handguns since the 1930s, does not have much to show for it. In 2006, when the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Paul Martin controlled the government, it was admitted in parliamentary debate that just three crimes in 70 years had been solved as a result of registration. A couple of those cases were debatable because other independent evidence helped solve the crimes. According to the Canadian Ministry of Public Safety, just 4 percent of Canadian handgun murders in 2005 and 2006 were committed with registered handguns, and none of those were registered to the people who committed the crimes. As for long-gun registration, at least as of 2006, not a single violent crime had been solved through registration.

Because registration doesn't help solve crime, it is important to ask why government wants to register the people's firearms. History provides the answer. In countries from Australia to England, registration has been used to create lists of guns that later were confiscated by their governments. Despite Mrs. Pelosi's assurances to the contrary, Americans' fear that registration will lead to confiscation is well-founded. Indeed, Mrs. Pelosi's own state of California already has used existing registration lists to confiscate so-called assault weapons just a half-dozen years ago.

The speaker claims registration won't lead to gun confiscation because of the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District's handgun ban last June. She knows full well that this judgment was based on a narrow 5-4 decision that could be reversed when President Obama gets his opportunity to appoint an additional liberal justice to the court.

A Gallup poll released Wednesday shows that support for gun control is "at an all-time low" since the issue started being surveyed nearly 50 years ago. According to Gallup, just 29 percent favor handgun bans. Now that Democrats are in control of the legislative and executive branches of government, even the will of the people won't keep them from going after the guns of law-abiding Americans.

[SCBrian]

Damn, and mine were JUST stolen. Yea. Umm Late yesterday. I just didn’t notice till today... umm.. yea, that's it. :rolleyes5cz:

I can guarantee you when/if it comes time to reg them, this is my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Wubby]

Quick noob question:

If you don't plan on murdering anyone anytime soon (which i hope anyone on here isnt) why is registering a gun too much trouble? do you have to pay extra taxes or what?

[fivestring]

Damn, and mine were JUST stolen. Yea. Umm Late yesterday. I just didn’t notice till today... umm.. yea, that's it. :rolleyes5cz:

I can guarantee you when/if it comes time to reg them, this is my story and I'm sticking to it...

Ditto

[Rapchizzle]

Quick noob question:

If you don't plan on murdering anyone anytime soon (which i hope anyone on here isnt) why is registering a gun too much trouble? do you have to pay extra taxes or what?

i'm going to ask you to read the article again. People don't want to register guns, because when they decide they have enough people in the gubment that would back them, they'll attack. They'll come after our guns when they think it's the right time and if you're got it registered, they'll be knocking on your door. The people who are telling you it won't happen, are the same people who said that Obama would fix everything and would not mess it up even more.

I know who I can trust and that's myself, not the government.

[Wubby]

i'm going to ask you to read the article again. People don't want to register guns, because when they decide they have enough people in the gubment that would back them, they'll attack. They'll come after our guns when they think it's the right time and if you're got it registered, they'll be knocking on your door. The people who are telling you it won't happen, are the same people who said that Obama would fix everything and would not mess it up even more.

I know who I can trust and that's myself, not the government.

Makes sense. Wasn't bashing it, just wondering why.

[fivestring]

The problem is that the gov't continually wants to "control" guns to reduce gun crime. Some how they consistantly believe that by reducing the rights of honest citizens of the United States of America they will be able to reduce gun crimes.

The majority of gun crimes are committed by the dreggs of society that typically have hot (stolen) guns.

The government believes that is the gun is "registered" they will be better able to track down the criminal. However, the crux is that again most crimes are committed w/ stolen guns.

A federal registration of firearms is the next step towards the removal of the gun from the honest citizen of the USA. I refuse to allow this government and espeically this rediculous administration take away the item I use for the protection of my small piece of the American dream.

-Nick

[Bermy]

Makes sense. Wasn't bashing it, just wondering why.

That makes sense to you?

These shadowy Obama-voting figures are EVERYWHERE!

[Wubby]

That makes sense to you?

These shadowy Obama-voting figures are EVERYWHERE!

Makes sense as in "I know why you don't want to register"

I have only one liberal view that i know of and thats the legalization of marijuana and even that i'm starting to question.

[Skeeter]

Quick noob question:

If you don't plan on murdering anyone anytime soon (which i hope anyone on here isnt) why is registering a gun too much trouble? do you have to pay extra taxes or what?

Chris & Fivestring already had good responses... The simplified truth, is that registration is the first step towards confiscation.
The sequence of events that would follow would be catastrophic, for the average law abiding citizen.

1. Law abiding citizen would register their firearm(s).
2. Big Guberment would confiscate the firearm(s) of said law abiding citizens
3. Criminals would have a free pass for armed B&E all over the country, since all law abiding citizens would be unarmed and defenseless. Armed “home invasion” would increase dramatically, and the local police forces would be unprepared and unable to cope with the increase in crime. The law abiding citizen would become nothing more than a victim, as criminals would be empowered to “redistribute the wealth” however , whenever and wherever they see fit.

[SCBrian]

Thanks Chris & Fivestring. My response would have been inline with yours. The thing that bugs the h3ll out of me though, is the people that would give up a certain type of firearm to please others. Ie, the handgun crowd would likely not mind giving up certain rifles, and the shotgun crowd would not mind giving up Handguns, or whatever. The fact is it’s a slippery slope once you start down it. I used to be involved in reptiles pretty heavy, and have seen more legislation that you would believe. When one crowd gives up a particular type of animal to keep theirs, both eventually lose all their animals. The same thing can be said of guns. It boils down to quit letting politicians try to make a name for themselves with ‘feel good – knee jerk reactions’ and enforce the existing laws. How will regulating or registering my guns help in any way to deter crime?

[Skeeter]

Correct on every point!
This pathway would lead to an increase in crime, and a HUGE legacy expense in the future. As the crime rates would rise (criminals redistributing wealth, to themselves), police forces would require more manpower & logistics to combat the increased crime rates. The legal system would become MORE bogged down (assuming that the police force could actually catch the criminals). The jails would become even more crowded, assuming that criminals COULD be caught and POSSIBLY even convicted.

Each one of these steps would cost HUGE amounts of $$, which could ONLY be raised by increasing taxes.

Not only would the confiscation of firearms (along with destroying the constitution) lead to a more dangerous society, it would lead to significant increases in taxes, as a bonus!

There is absolutely NO logical reason to proceed down this pathway. Unfortunately, those in power (Pilosi, Reid, Dod, Obama, etc.) are quite immune to logic and will attempt to proceed in this direction.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

And:

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Thomas Jefferson!

"They that are on their guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries, are in much less danger of being attacked than the supine, secure and negligent."

Benjamin Franklin!

[SCBrian]

There is absolutely NO logical reason to proceed down this pathway. Unfortunately, those in power (Pilosi, Reid, Dod, Obama, etc.) are quite immune to logic and will attempt to proceed in this direction.


I propose they lead by example, and disarm their secret service escorts and bodyguards... :shocked7fl:

[MadMatt]

They can have my weapons when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
People should not fear their government, government should fear the people.

[Phantom549]

ok V...

and yea, screw having to have our guns registered... even tho i highly doubt the govt would want any of mine anyway lol

[MadMatt]

Ive got the mask and everything...

[Black Label86]

The sad thing is that enough people won't speak out against this, and our guns will get registered and eventually taken. There are too many people that are happy with "going with the flow".

[iown26]

i dont see how people that have this much power got there to begin with, when they can't understand simple logic like this...

[Paco]

If I owned any guns I'd be nervous. :wink0st:

[SCBrian]

mine were just stolen...:shocked7fl::rolleyes5cz::wink0st:

[Redcoat]

up until 2005 my entire life was lived in england, ninety percent of that in london so i know a thing or two about socialist governments and unarmed citizens. and i can honestly say, and some of you may have heard me say it at the field that i feel much safer here than back home. when you take the right to own guns away from people, only the badguys have guns. heck, you dont have the selection that you do here but if you have any brixton connections you can get a gun, costs about double normal store price here. honestly, in my experience london was a lot more violent than this side of the pond. seems to make some people think twice when theres a chance of someone shooting back.

[Tbigs]

It is now closer to reality than you think. You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.
One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.
"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.
"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."
The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.
The judge sentences you to life in prison.
This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.
How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?
It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.
Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.
The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)
Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.
For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."
All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.
When the Dunblane inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens..
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.
Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
Got this in an e-mail. If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

[Redcoat]

wow, i am impressed a 'yank' found that all out ;) but seriously.. i remember dunblane specifically. they installed 15ft motorised prison gates on my schools only entrance because of it. the lack of a way to defend ones self causes potential criminals to be more brazen. for example one of the many times i have been attempted mugged occured outside kensington palace... in the middle of the day. thats princess diana's old residence and the two idiots had no issue trying attempting something like that. infact nearly all my 'skirmishes occured in broad daylight in busy areas. and if i defended myself with even a glass bottle i pick up off the ground its considered aggrivated bodily harm with an improvised deadly weapon -_- its ridiculous. I love england and being british but these days the criminals get more protection..

[Wubby]

every time i see the headline story it's another freedom that is being taken away. where will the line be drawn? when will someone in congress or the senate stand up and say "this is bullshit!". Seems like everyone in our government is being payed off by someone. Whether it be PETA or liberal organizations. What amazes me is that democrats don't support guns used for hunting, sport, etc. but they support sucking a fetus's brain out simply because "it's a womans RIGHT to privacy."

I think, in the most mature way, it's going to take the american people to stand up to their government. We've been screwed over enough. And i think taking away guns is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back.

[Skeeter]

Public awareness of the issue is the key. I have been searching for a specific quote (still can’t find it) that states: “fear the government that fears the guns of its people”. Thought it was Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the most intelligent, logical and insightful people to ever live. The simple fact that he put his life on the line (just like all of the founding fathers, authors and signers of THE Declaration of Independence, and THE Constitution) to do the right thing, is amazing. He could have lived a happy, prosperous, life as a gentleman/planter/farmer/lawyer, but instead, focused his wisdom towards government and the “Declaration of Independence” and help shape the course of what is now our history.

Our founding fathers were willing to give their lives for their country. They were the best and brightest minds in the nation, and they did what was necessary for the country, and NOT what was necessary to get reelected. They served for the people and I truly believe the majority of them would have given their lives for this country. How many of today’s politicians would give their lives for this country??? Not many!!! How many of them want to do what is best for this country??? Not many!!!

Anyway, I can’t find the quote in question, but I have found lots of others:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." -- Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" -- Patrick Henry

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" -- Tench Coxe

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -- Tench Coxe

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison

Best quote EVER: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

There are so many good quotes to be learned. I know that this is a drop in the bucket, but please research and learn a bit about each person I quoted. Especially Tench Coxe. I have visited his grave site in Philadelphia. When you touch the tombstone, the person becomes tangible & what they fought for becomes more significant.

The best form of power is knowledge, and our current government is trying to take away ours! Learn all you can about our constitution, the amendments, and share your knowledge with anyone that will listen. Encourage them to learn as well, and propagate the knowledge as you are. Every free person should learn all they can, and form their own opinions. With this knowledge, our population becomes more powerful and the government will have less opportunity to tyrannize and subjugate!

[Skeeter]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" -- George Washington