Of no-Obama Wouldn't Try To Take Guns AwayCould Someone Please Explain This, Then?

[virgil]

steve, you honestly think that nobody would come after you with a lawsuit of some sort? It has happened before, probably alot more often than we hear about.

You can't be sued if you've followed the law.

[WNYBuckHunter]

You cant? Tell that to OJ. He was found innocent and slapped with a civil suit.

Dont ask me if I think if he was really innocent, just going by what the court said.

[WNYBuckHunter]

WNY, you've proven nothing. In fact, you've offered nothing to this conversation. If you're entertained, that's great. If you are so easily validated, even better. Possibly delusional, but whatever.

Come on virgil, you can admit defeat, really you can.

Ive offered alot to this conversation, and shown your comparisons to be nonsensical and "facts" to be incorrect. Id call that proving you wrong. You just cant handle it. I understand. Its ok to be wrong.

[steve863]

steve, you honestly think that nobody would come after you with a lawsuit of some sort? It has happened before, probably alot more often than we hear about.

We are a lawsuit happy society, so I have no doubt there would be lawsuits. There are lawsuits already. Bloomberg sues gun dealers in other states. etc. I simply think if we initiate some safeguards it benefits us way more than if we are resistant to any sort of change. The republicans stuck to their same old song this past election too, and we all saw how far that got them. Same with the gun issue. Society is changing and the same old song won't do it for much longer.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

True, no one would like high fees. I think in this computer age, the fees could be kept minimal if anything at all. I just think if we don't do something to make the system better than it currently is, we will lose out sooner than later. The never give an inch ideology will not work too much longer in modern day America, I can assure anyone of that.

You mean kinda like the cheap computer registration of my Truck...lol

[greybeard]

The below is for those who feel that the Federal Government will take away there guns :

1. There, at this time, would not be enough political support in the House, or Senate

2. The Federal Government does not have enough authorized law enforcement personnel to enforce such laws.. It would require armed enforcement personnel, regulatory personnel, other essential personnel...Office space.. etc. etc.

3. Since the new enforcement agency would most likely have to be created , the budget for such an agency would never be approved.( my wife JOKINGLY just said that they could call a new Agency the GEA (GUN ENFORCEMENT AGENCY)

4. The only Federal employees currently staffed to enforce such laws would be the military and I believe that The Posse Comitatus Act would prevent this, and realistically no one would ever consider using our military anyway.

Since my arrogant personality causes me to always argue from either side, and I read so many sites where everyone assume and interpret so many things .. How's this !!

Here's how they COULD do it, "IF" a law could be passed.

1. Pass the appropriate GUN law ( in this case I'll assume that some of you are correct and it COULD get passed)

2. ALLOW the individual States to enforce the law, since the FEDS can't do it effectively

(Remember the Arizona challenge to Immigration.. Many citizens in this country supported the Arizona challenge so there's the precedent, only this time the Federal Government wouldn't fight it).. I always wondered why U.S. citizens didn't see the Arizona challenge could be tried by other States as they saw fit for there own perceived

needs..(MY paranoia)

a. If a State does not elect to enforce the gun laws, but the weapon enters a State that does, and a violator is identified, then the Enforcing State can effect an arrest based on the Federal Law...

b. Since it would be a FEDERAL LAW, arrest warrants could be issued for any one in any State and enforceable even in States that won't enforce the laws, (by Federal personnel)..So if someone sends a weapon which violates the law to an enforcing State they can still be prosecuted in the appropriate Federal District.

3. Create a small oversight Federal agency .( I like the name GEA, it's catchy)

4. Hire Private Contract companies, as the Federal Government so often does, to aid in enforcement of appropriate regulations.. (Americans will REALLY like this.. Because as discussed by the Politicians .. Private companies are the job makers, so there will be private sector jobs created... This will mean MANY more good paying jobs, which is GREAT for our economy)... THEY CAN BUILD IT !!!! (good quote, isn't it)

5. The Contract Companies can ask State and Local police for backup when needed. There are systems in place to fund Police Department support,( good incentive.)

6. The new GEA will conduct oversight of the contract companies.(much smaller budget)....

I'd have to tweak this because I really haven't put much thought into it( I just woke up), and besides I just wanted to see if I could go into my head to try to create and understand paranoid thoughts( a brain exercise)...

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The below is for those who feel that the Federal Government will take away there guns :

1. There, at this time, would not be enough political support in the House, or Senate

2. The Federal Government does not have enough authorized law enforcement personnel to enforce such laws.. It would require armed enforcement personnel, regulatory personnel, other essential personnel...Office space.. etc. etc.

3. Since the new enforcement agency would most likely have to be created , the budget for such an agency would never be approved.( my wife JOKINGLY just said that they could call a new Agency the GEA (GUN ENFORCEMENT AGENCY)

4. The only Federal employees currently staffed to enforce such laws would be the military and I believe that The Posse Comitatus Act would prevent this, and realistically no one would ever consider using our military anyway.

1. I agree but that hasn't stopped things from being done under Exec order that I thought woulndt happen.

2.You mean like they just added to police the Obamacare with IRS agents?

3.(See #2 above)

4. agreed.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

2. ALLOW the individual States to enforce the law, since the FEDS can't do it effectively

(Remember the Arizona challenge to Immigration.. Many citizens in this country supported the Arizona challenge so there's the precedent, only this time the Federal Government wouldn't fight it).. I always wondered why U.S. citizens didn't see the Arizona challenge could be tried by other States as they saw fit for there own perceived

needs..(MY paranoia)

a. If a State does not elect to enforce the gun laws, but the weapon enters a State that does, and a violator is identified, then the Enforcing State can effect an arrest based on the Federal Law...

b. Since it would be a FEDERAL LAW, arrest warrants could be issued for any one in any State and enforceable even in States that won't enforce the laws, (by Federal personnel)..So if someone sends a weapon which violates the law to an enforcing State they can still be prosecuted in the appropriate Federal District.

I won'der about this in the context of the immigration but also the new stance adopted by a few states on Pot. The feds laws still says no but the state laws will be saying yes. As an employer and you have pre-employment drug screening. If someone tests positive for pot in a state where it is legal now, do you deny them employment? By state law you can't but by federal law you can.

[virgil]

I'd have to tweak this because I really haven't put much thought into it( I just woke up), and besides I just wanted to see if I could go into my head to try to create and understand paranoid thoughts( a brain exercise)...

It's a trap. Paranoids are too happy to believe the nonsense of other paranoids and also quick to confuse being ignored with having proven a point. Then, also quick to pat themselves and other paranoids on the back for 'winning an argument'. A trap-one that I fall into much too often.

[13BVET]

Why not? When you sell your registered car second-hand, there's a paper trail.

How many lives have been saved by car registration? ZERO. On average, over 30,000 people get killed in cars every year. Dammit, I think we might consider banning certain makes!

[virgil]

How many lives have been saved by car registration? ZERO. On average, over 30,000 people get killed in cars every year. Dammit, I think we might consider banning certain makes!

Noone said that the point of registering cars is to save lives. The system of car registration was being used as an example. Not the reason. The point of gun registration would be to establish a papertrail of ownership and ensure that the after-market sales maintain the trail.

[steve863]

Cars were invented to get humans from one place to another.

Guns were invented to kill, maim, dispatch the enemy in warfare.

I tell you guys, you will NEVER convince modern society that guns are just some innocent little tool that no one should be fearful of in the hands of just anyone. Nope, just won't happen. You are free to dream however.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

I can agree with that Steve. It's like saying "Yeah I train martial arts so I can make friends and because the constitution says so."

For some strange reason I keep hearing "dey took are job!" from that popular South Park episode, only it's like "dey took are gunz!"

I think there's some people who didn't fall far from the tree on both sides of the topic. My mentality is to run with the right only because if you give the left an inch, they'll take a mile. Who really knows.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I'd have to tweak this because I really haven't put much thought into it( I just woke up), and besides I just wanted to see if I could go into my head to try to create and understand paranoid thoughts( a brain exercise)...

It's a trap. Paranoids are too happy to believe the nonsense of other paranoids and also quick to confuse being ignored with having proven a point. Then, also quick to pat themselves and other paranoids on the back for 'winning an argument'. A trap-one that I fall into much too often.

First off virgil, Im not a "paranoid" that thinks they will take my guns. I am however, a supporter of the 2nd amendment and an opponent of the socialist agenda. Second, you have no rebuttal to what I said because there is none. You are flat out wrong, period.

[ants]

What I often think about is yearly taxes or fees being imposed, on each firearm a person owns. It could become too costly to own guns. Hope Im just being paranoid.

[Grouse]

You're not being paranoid. The anti's and the government are always looking at ways to prevent gun ownership, regardless of the impact on crime. Most laws on the books have no impact on crime, yet the government persuaded enough voters to allow them to become law. It made them feel good about them and sold them false hope.

Why would your own government do that? It fears an armed populace that can defend itself against a government that wants to grow bigger and control all facets of your life. Every Communist and Socialist regime throughout history has done the same thing to retain power. Our government is leaning further Left every day and those guns in the hands of citizens are a real obstacles in the way of the government's progress and "Forward" movement.

The government is not your friend and is not looking out for your best interests, unless you believe the total nanny state is in your best interest.

[Grouse]

How many lives have been saved by car registration? ZERO. On average, over 30,000 people get killed in cars every year. Dammit, I think we might consider banning certain makes!

Noone said that the point of registering cars is to save lives. The system of car registration was being used as an example. Not the reason. The point of gun registration would be to establish a papertrail of ownership and ensure that the after-market sales maintain the trail.

By your paper trail statement, you seem to believe that many law abiding gun owners are selling their guns illegally and that is where criminals get their guns. The incidences involving this scenario are extremely low. Putting pressure on all gun owners because of it, is misguided and unproductive in the reduction of crime. It is, however, very productive in advancing the government's war on gun owners and advancing their desire to make it harder for you to own firearms, or keep them.

You need to evaluate your trust in the government and develop greater skepticism skill, based on the past history of government firearm oppression. With the amount of gun laws on the books now, and their obvious ineffectiveness towards reducing crime, doesn't asking for more gun laws seem a little stupid to you?

[Early]

Uh, Oh....Better check out Cook County, Illinois (Chicago...where else?) budget: It includes a "vioence tax" to be levied on new gun purchases.

[Grouse]

Another example of the government "Thinking Outside Of The Box" with regard to the 2nd Amendment, to infringe on law abiding gun ownership.

[13BVET]

Uh, Oh....Better check out Cook County, Illinois (Chicago...where else?) budget: It includes a "vioence tax" to be levied on new gun purchases.

Actually, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants a fee imposed on the WHOLE STATE. Not just Cook County.