Skip to main content

Anytime a gun advocate comes up against a good argument,  he backs into something along this line... Well, Hitler had all the guns registered and you saw what happened there, didn't you?

First, what happened in Germany in 1932, could happen here..... lol. or more likely, it could not..   Using an argument that has no relevancy does little to help us move forward and take away every NRA sanctioned gun...   I kid again.  For underlying that sentiment, the reason the NRA and gun nuts are so uptight, is that they think their guns will get taken away....  Although that sounds absolute perposterous to a normal American, ... based on our history, they do have a point.....  We once took alcohol away... Made it completely illegal... And,  I just discovered this today,  the Fed's poisoned alcohol and put it out for public consumption, thinking that dying would cause people to shun the stuff....  10,000 died  and  it caused more people to drink than ever.....

So let us not put it past the Rick Santorums, you know those sanctimonious types who think their morals are so extreme that all America needs to become like them?   Just like birth control, he will try to take your guns...

If the Republicans do try and confiscate weaponry,  how would they go about it?  They would use the ATF.  That is the old name; it is now known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or in short form:  ATF (it never changed)....

The ATF agents are the specials of the class special agents.  They are the only agents authorized to enforce every aspect of  the U. S. Code...  The ATF employees roughly 5000, out of which 2400 are special agents....

There are estimates as high as 330 million firearms are scattered in homes across the country.  The current estimate is that the number ranges between 42 and 55 million households that have at least one weapon.   as you can see, the average household has 6 weapons per home.....

So, let us test the rationality behind the fear of "coming to take your guns away, shall we?

Let's ask the question, ... if we have 2400 ATF agents trying to confiscate 330 million guns in 55 million households..... how many years would it take?

Now we have to figure out a time frame,  can they do 10 in one day?  I think that would be too high of a number.  They would have to scout the house first and take a read to determine if it will be a simple operation, or a Waco Texas Gun Battle....  So, I would "guestimate" that  each agent should average one household a day...  He'd work on scouting the house from 8-3pm then go up, knock on the door, and for the next hour, try to get the gun.

At first, assuming we aren't yet going to Puerto Rico,  let's divide those ATF's up into a certain number per state.....   Nice round number... 48 agents get their papers to go to each state...  They check into a hotel, they check out the internet connection, they go down to the bar...

So, the plan is to do each state and after a state gets completely rounded up, those agents head  to California to assist the 48 who have the largest population to cover....

So, 55 million households divided by 2400 agents investigating a household every single day....   hmmm... yep... let's see...

Rounded up, that would take 22,917 days....   not bad...   so in years divided by 365.25 to include leap year..... hmmmm.. yep... let's see....

62.72 years...  actually... ( using the original total not rounding up by a third of a day).. Using the rounded total above, it would rise to... 62.74 years...
Oh wait...  We are talking Federal Employees here... They need time off.   Oops!  We just figured they'd work with no time off for 63 years...  so, .. since there are 52 weeks in a year, that means for each year we will have to subtract a day off for Saturday, and one off for Sunday... or 104 days a years.. While we are at it, lets give them vacations too!  So add 10 days to each years total!   So if we put that into the formula... and add it for every year, 114 days across the 62 and 3/4ths years... ...  hmmm... yep... let's see...  we will have to add on 7151.7 more days....   Therefore our total total would be.... 30069.7 days... or in years....  82.3 years....
So... if we start in 2017 when "Sanctimonious Santorum" gets sworn in and begin confiscating all the firearms in US households..... the task will be completed by the beginning of the new century... We'd be starting a new Century with no guns....
Oh yes, During this time frame, forget about ATF involvement in illicit drug investigations. . Forget about ATF involvement in explosions.  Forget about  checking for smuggling.  Forget about ATF involvement in checking the level of tar and nicotine inside of cigarettes... Forget about everything they do.   Every agent for the next 82+ years, is rounding up guns at the rate of one household a day....

News Flash!!!!!!   It's not going to happen.  Even if we violated the Constitution and brought all our troops back home and told them to confiscate guns (they'd refuse to obey of course)....  I'm just being theoretical....  having a force of 1.5 million scattered across the country, all in hotel rooms on the taxpayer's tab, with Internet capacity and a bar downstairs...  at one household a day, it would still take over a month... ..  roughly 40 days...

It would be an awesome time to attack the US.  There would be no soldiers stationed anywhere internationally (Ron Paul would jump for joy) to defend us...  But local hotels would love it..  At $100 per diem, the industry would be raking in $150,000,000.... every single day...

So gun enthusiasts, put this argument behind you.  It is impossible. No one is coming for your guns...
 We are simply going to ban military weaponry,  eliminate some huge ammo clips, and register every single gun owner, and make them go through a psychological evaluation....  No big deal . It's just getting a license to drive your car... And... no one is going to confiscate cars either, even though they do kill  more people per year than guns....

I must say.  I'm slightly perplexed.

You can argue this with the NRA that no one is coming for their guns until you are blue in the face! So why has no one ever done the math before?   Obviously the math makes the NRA's argument completely inane...  Simple math proves it is impossible to come and take everyone's gun away...
Period...  You'd almost think Grover Norquist was working for the NRA..... oops...
Now, let's all work together and stop these suicidal shooters from taking more innocent lives...

Originally posted to kavips on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:19 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Community Spotlight, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  as certain as death and taxes-even Jesus said to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, radarlady

    render to Caesar what was Caesar's, but some folks just won't listen.

  •  It's Their Biggest Fear..... (8+ / 0-)

    Ever since Ruby Ridge & the standoff w/ David Koresh.....the "gubmint" is coming to get them.

    Militias must be formed.  Guns, ammo, grenade launchers, assault rifles, food stores.....it must all be stock piled for when the "gubmint" comes.

    The "gubmint" is coming to take their 2nd Amendment rights away.  The "gubmint" is made up of commies, Socialists, Libertards, free loaders & welfare queens.

    Guns will stop us....supposedly.

    •  They were afraid of this long before Ruby Ridge (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, tle

      I remember this kind of talk from the 60s and I'd be stunned to find it was new then.

      They're not doing math, they're doing gut fear. Anything they say is not arising from reason and can't be addressed by reason. Prove that their guns are safe and they'll still fear that armies of New World Order atheists will break down their door and force them to convert to Islam. Once they're subject to Sharia law they'll be forced to become homosexuals. They'll keep contradicting themselves as long as the fear is there.

      That said, a national registry would allow skipping most of the "investigation" part and the scope could be reduced by starting with a program of compensation for voluntary surrender of firearms. What's left could be speeded up by establishing a Stasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/...).

      It's unlikely the Army would "refuse to obey of course", though it's possible given how much of the military is from the South.

      •  Germany 1932? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hirodog, splashy, CanisMaximus

        Why not Australia, 1997? (After all, they are a democracy still in existence, and they speak English....although they'd wonder at what a "gubmint" is.

        Anyway, that country banned assault weapons and instituted a nationwide buyback of them, and registered all weapons. After 15 years the Aussies still have their guns, but there have been no massacres like Newtown (or the Tasmanian one in 1996 that left 35 dead and led to the law in the first place.)
        Also homicides and suicides and accidental shootings are...surprise!....down, as reported here.

        Just saying....and thanks for crunching the numbers for the ATF.

        Shalom.

        "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

        by WineRev on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:55:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Plus Hitler Wasn't Even In Power In '32 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          myboo, CanisMaximus, PSzymeczek

          And under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany dismantled its arms industries.

          Hitler didn't demand that, we did.

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:36:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And then WE didn't enforce it.. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tle, CanisMaximus

            Which probably proves the point: the worst law is the law which is in place and yet ignored. See: Second Amendment.

            We are ignoring half of it, and not paying attention to the INTENT of the law; to keep guns in the hands of responsible people and well-regulate them out of the hands of the irresponsible. What is so difficult about this?

            Oh.. I know. People cannot read. Including the Supreme Court, tied up in the pettifogging minutia of lawyeristic convoluted semantics. They miss the point nearly every time.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:52:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Nicely done! Tip'd/Rec'd and tweeted. Thank you. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, DRo

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:07:24 PM PST

  •  In all my years (15+ / 0-)

    I had not heard about the government's alcohol poisoning scheme during prohibition.  I just now learned more about it online.  It's reminiscent of the government's spraying marijuana fields with deadly Paraquat back in the late 70s.

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:19:30 PM PST

  •  thanks for doing the math (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus

    whether it's correct or not

    ;)

  •  Um, your numbers need to be updated (7+ / 0-)

    There are well over 1 million LEO'S in this nation.

    Local, State and Federal.

    http://www.nleomf.org/...

    The link above is almost 4 yrs old before the hiring and expansions of DHS, etc.

    This doesn't include our military or our standing army and National Guard

    That total is well over 1.8 million.

    That doesn't include the recent purchases of ammo totaling over 1.4 billion rounds including 500 million hollow point bullets that are banned for use in war.

    So, we have well over 2.5 million armed agents of our government with the firepower to wage a 7 yr war inside the United States, if they desired.

    Just saying, not advocating anything here except facts.

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 01:19:08 AM PST

    •  Still wouldn't happen. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Dave in Northridge, Kamakhya

      What would happen if it was tried would be a brief, very bloody war, not a 7 year one.  All of the real gun 'nuts' out there would immediately go into 'you'll pry it from my cold dead hands' mode, and we'd have both a lot of dead 'nuts', and a lot of dead law enforcement officers.  All of the sane gun owners would grumble a lot, and some small subset would successfully hide weapons and claim them as 'lost' or 'stolen'.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        large numbers of the gun owners would have read Unexpected Consequences etc etc etc etc and would go after soft targets, meaning people like us.

        Also, if you do the numbers, you find that after not very long we run out of LEOs and soldiers, assuming they show up on the right side.

        We can have change for the better.

        by phillies on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:20:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No need to hide anything. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        Less than a handful of states have any kind of registration requirement for long guns, and many don't require registration of handguns either. If the only records a state has on who out there may legally own gun/guns are recent sales receipts, they'd be bound to miss the vast majority of guns in any kind of door-knocker campaign.

        Now, you might say they should then bust into everyone's home and turn it inside out searching for guns (without anything resembling probable cause), but all that would do is recruit a whole lot of people into the resistance. Completely unworkable, and no ostensibly 'legal' gun law can come attached to a rider that abrogates constitutional amendments that aren't amendment #2 (think #4, for instance). Unless the constitution is suspended in toto, and that would mean the United States no longer exists and everybody's on their own. I can name at least a dozen states that wouldn't mind that one bit, use the opportunity to declare their sovereignty and give Uncle Sam a rousing Bronx cheer...

        •  Actually, the point is that presumably martial (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau

          law would have been declared meaning the 4th amendment no longer applies at all.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 03:34:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, that's the no-brainer. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            There are factions in today's political arena that indeed do intend to dismantle the United States and turn it into something none of us would recognize or welcome. Disarming the population is of course prerequisite to something like that, apart from those who hope to raise effective armies from amongst the mostly elderly and obese Teabagger contingent.

            I'm not seriously looking for revolution to happen, or even civil war. But I've been surprised before.

    •  The federal government (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phillies

      Can't force state and local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun ban.

    •  The scenario's garbage no matter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, Samulayo, DarthMeow504

      how you do the numbers... which here is downright laughable.

      They'd never risk themselves going door to door, they'd just pass laws criminalizing citizens for owning guns - make them criminals by decree, with a grace period for the people to drop off their own guns at the collection centers (or swear under oath they have no guns) in order to have their bank accounts unfrozen. Not that many people would starve in a few weeks, and the banksters could make out like bandits by drawing interest on the nation's seized money supply even if it only lasted for one week! Win-win for the power structure.

      I do admit this is the first time I EVER saw a diarist go all Godwin on his own argument in the very first paragraph, though. Unfortunately, the diarist apparently doesn't know that Hitler disarmed the populace by fiat decree (sort of like an executive order, preceded by declaration of national emergency/crisis), thereby avoiding issues of legality.

      But who would bother being factual about something with so much emotion behind it, when simple milking grabs the quickest mojo...

  •  not so much (12+ / 0-)
    We are simply going to ban military weaponry,  eliminate some huge ammo clips, and register every single gun owner, and make them go through a psychological evaluation....  No big deal . It's just getting a license to drive your car.
    there is no constitutional amendment declaring that the right to drive a car shall not be infringed.

    psych evals for gun ownership?  just as soon as they're imposed on every single police officer/military enlistee.

    and who would pay for said psych eval?  would gun purchasers be able to visit a shrink of their own choosing, or would it be an ATF-approved doctor only?

    you can absolutely forget about registering every gun owner.  no way is that going to fly.  how the very idea isn't utterly appalling to every liberal on earth eludes me mightily.    

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:33:58 AM PST

    •  Don't go at it that way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RUNDOWN, Calamity Jean, nolagrl

      Fine gun dealers who sell large magazines, armor piercing bullets, semi automatic weapons.

      You can have them, if you can find anybody who will sell them. There's no constitutional right to sell weapons. Just to bear them.

      It wasn't illegal to DRINK alcohol, either. Just to SELL it.  

      •  Inventory problem (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn

        That kind of law would only slightly reduce availability, though over a lifetime it would make more difference.

        •  whose lifetime? (0+ / 0-)

          The Kindergarten class at Sandy Hook?

          The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. - The Communist Manifesto

          by nolagrl on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:09:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sorry (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samulayo

        I have a write to freedom of the press, and not a right to buy a printing press?

        That's silly.

        We can have change for the better.

        by phillies on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:22:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Prohibition is not a good argument.. (0+ / 0-)

        Since it failed. Better to focus on regulation that works; auto registration and drivers licenses work for the most part. And although cars are not constitutionally mentioned, guns are not either. "Arms" are mentioned, and we get to define what "arms" are.

        This is not very difficult to see. We, all of us, agree that Anti-Tank and Ant-Aircraft weapons are not protected "arms." Even our friends at Kos RKBA draw the line at "crew-served" weapons.

        It is NOT unreasonable to define arms which were crew served as recently as 1912... machine guns and semi-automatic weapons. Those are battlefield weapons and fall under the Well-regulated militia clause, to be stored in militia armories for emergencies.

        I really dont see what is so difficult about this.

        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

        by OregonOak on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 06:59:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why it isn't appalling... (5+ / 0-)

      Right now, I could go to any of dozens of stores in the Minneapolis/St Paul metro area and quite legally buy a firearm. The level of paperwork associated with that will, of course, vary with the type of weapon I was buying but the fact remains that I could. I could also quite legally write a check to any number of private citizens in the same metro area who are looking to sell a weapon and acquire one that way.

      Now assume that the person who sold it to me is required to report that he or she did so and that the weapon is no longer in their possession and no longer under their control? Does that infringe my right to possess it? Not that I can see. How about if I am required to report that this weapon, serial # XXXXXX, is now in my possession and under my control? Nope, I still have a clear right to have it.

      Let's take it a little further.. let's go for some "personal responsibility" that certain folks are so enamored of. I have reported that, as is my right, I am now the owner of a firearm. How about if I am required to also have secure storage for that weapon and when outside that storage it must be in my personal control? Even take it so far as as to say that "what anyone else does with it is still legally my fault for allowing it into their hands in the first place" It's still my right to own it, but rights do come with responsibilities and I'm fine with that. What rational person wouldn't be?

      If it's stolen and I don't promptly report that then I'm carrying some measure of the responsibility if it's used in a crime too. Still my right to own a weapon, no infringement of the 2nd Amendment anywhere in this entire reply.

      Registration DOES NOT interfere with the right to keep and bear arms. Nor does reasonable requirements for responsibility on the part of weapon owners.

    •  There is no Constitutional mandate for VoterID... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dewley notid, nolagrl

      but that didn't stop state legislatures from implementing some draconian measures to prevent citizens from voting. Also a Constitutional right. Never say never when our mandates on election are regularly ignored. Politicians do what politicians do without regard to your opinion or mine.

      •  and there is a (0+ / 0-)

        Constitutional right to abortion.  And every day, lawmakers across America stand up to propose laws to take away the Constitutional rights of women.

        The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. - The Communist Manifesto

        by nolagrl on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:12:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Funny, informative twist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    radarlady, Silvia Nightshade

    on the subject.  Thanks.  Good job!

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:42:35 AM PST

  •  Dr. Demento riff is appropriate, considering... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah

    how nutty the entire notion is.

    Which is not to say for a single instant that we shouldn't try to restrict casual availablity of mass-murder devices like the AR-15 or Bushmaster along with high-capacity magazines for any lunatic who wants one.

  •  Well, this makes me wonder (7+ / 0-)

    Alcohol, tobacco and firearms.  Which item in this category of things isn't taxed to the absolute maximum? States tax tobacco sometimes to pay for the public health consequences of smoking. Alcohol is taxed to gain revenue.  Why not put a tax on ammunition to pay for the consequences of gun violence? There's no amendment that says you can't be hindered from buying ammo.

    -7.75, -8.10; Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Dave in Northridge on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:26:50 AM PST

  •  Debating an advertising slogan (4+ / 0-)

    The concept that the government is going to take away all guns is an advertising slogan, conceived only to sell more guns and ammo (and make more money for the gun industry), not as policy.

    Gun makers and gun retailers believe this because they have a financial incentive to beleive it.  Gun buyers believe it because they need a reason to justify spending more money on guns and ammo.

    Counting up the number of government agents and the number of guns to show how long it would take those government agents to take away those guns has as much utility as calculating whether Ford makes better trucks than Chevy: you can do it, but all you have proved is that advertising slogans are silly.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:31:41 AM PST

    •  Suppose they read Daily Kos (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DarthMeow504

      They'd see a diary advocated sending soldiers door to door to confiscate guns. They'd see themselves called terrorists, and we all know what the government thinks they can do to anyone they call a terrorist. They'd see comments saying nobody has any excuse to own any gun.

      The fear is a pre-existing condition but they don't need advertising to feed it.

      •  Agreed: the fear is already there (0+ / 0-)

        I agree: fear is a pre-existing condition.

        Using that fear to get people to buy a certain product is a central technique of good advertising.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:24:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  one of my coworkers went off on a rant about this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RUNDOWN, drmah

    very thing: gun control was bad because the nhya-zees did it.  I pointed out by that logic he was also against the Apollo space program & Volkswagen.

    drone strikes in Pakistan = Sandy Hook Elementary x10.

    by bnasley on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 08:53:03 AM PST

  •  Registration is a no-go. (7+ / 0-)

    I am all for licencing and background checks for individuals, but registering individual firearms can only serve one purpose: Later confiscation.

    In Britain, firearm registries (in place for most of the 20th century) were used to facilitate gun seizures in late 90's. The same is true of Australia. The same is true of New York State.

    The individual is the problem, here. So let's address the problem through a more robust mental-health system, lower thresholds for mandatory committment, and requiring background checks for private purchases.

    Let's NOT try to ban guns, which is exactly what registration is a precursor to, and HAS been a precursor to everywhere else.

    •  patently untrue (4+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry, but the argument that registration of individual weapons is solely a precursor to their seizure is a fallacy.

      Suppose a weapon is recovered from a crime scene. It is already true that if every legitimate change of ownership for that weapon was via a licensed dealer then law enforcement can determine who the legal owner of that weapon is. Of course it may have been stolen or used without their knowledge but it does give the cops a starting point. If it's been reported stolen then they know WHEN that weapon hit the street. If it hasn't then why not?

      Registration is neither a precursor to seizure nor unconstitutional. It is the act of seizure that falls outside the constitution. It's perfectly constitutional to require you to register your weapon, its just unconstitutional to say you aint allowed to keep it.

      •  Not so... (0+ / 0-)

        [quote]Suppose a weapon is recovered from a crime scene. It is already true that if every legitimate change of ownership for that weapon was via a licensed dealer then law enforcement can determine who the legal owner of that weapon is. [/quote]

        Not so. NICS applications are destroyed after a couple of days, and the information is specifically NOT availible to law enforcement agencies, precisely so that it cannot be used as the de facto registry you think it is.

        •  Ah hell... (0+ / 0-)

          Someday I will learn to post fancy here. Someday... ._.

        •  Thank you for the correction.. (0+ / 0-)

          ...but even so, there are legitimate uses for a registry. The conflation of registration with "intent to seize" is founded in the conviction that "if the government CAN take away my guns, they WILL" - which, I respectfully submit, is neither proven nor a rational basis for refusing, as a society, to avail ourselves of these legitimate applications of registration.

          In countering my statement that registration is not automatically a precursor to seizure, many examples from other countries have been cited. Not one of those countries has an equivalent of the 2nd Amendment extant in the fundamental law of the land.

          The Australian example is particularly telling, where the registry in that country was used to enforce a mandatory buyback of a class of weapons that was formerly legal but subsequently prohibited. How would that play out in this country? Well we already have settled law and precedent that it is perfectly constitutional to outlaw a specific class of weapon in public hands, for example those capable of fully automatic fire. They used to be legal, now they are not.

          The 2nd Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms. While that remains in force registered or not you are allowed to own guns.  If the 2nd Amendment is ever amended out of the constitution, then the simple lack of registration will be no barrier to the seizure of weapons. Opposing a registry on these grounds, therefore, is an argument based on very shaky foundations.

      •  However (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dewley notid

        Registration has been a precursor to seizure.  See "California, SKS".

        We can have change for the better.

        by phillies on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:24:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  registration and confiscation (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samulayo, DarthMeow504

        Whether registration is intended to originally intended to lead to consfiscation or not, that can be the ultimate result, and has been, historically.

        Gun registration has also been spectacularly ineffective at preventing or solving crimes.   Most law abiding citizens do not trust the government enough to register guns and the supreme court already established  in 1968 that felons are exempt from gun registration under the self-incrimination clause of the 5th amendment.  Gun registration is expensive, error prone, totally ineffective at preventing crime, violates civil rights, is unconstitutional, makes criminals out of law abiding citizens, and fosters distrust of the government.

        A study of the last 50 centuries shows that democide (genocide/politicide/murder by or sanctioned by government) has killed 16-17 times as many people as war and has killed more people than war in every century.
        http://www.hawaii.edu/...
        http://www.hawaii.edu/...

        In the 20th century, the top 15 cases of democide killed 151 million people.  If the average world population during this time period was 3 billion people (the population explosion happened in the 2nd half of the century) this represents about 5% of the world population killed by democide.
        http://www.hawaii.edu/...

        Proto-fascism is the form fascism takes before it has enough power to reveal its true colors:
        http://cursor.org/...

        And do you really need to be reminded of the Patriot Act (Bush, extended by Obama), the unlawful detention under NDAA (Bush, made legal under Obama), the new presidential authority to assasinate US citizens considered terrorists (Obama) without due process, etc.    With that much going on under Obama, imagine what a Neocon might do.   And what of the illegal door to door confiscation of firearms during Katrina?

        Contemporaneous writing by the founding father, and their contemporaries, has established that the authors of the second amendment intended it as protection of the populace from the tyrany of govenment.   It reflects a very strong distrust by the founding fathers of the very government they created.

           A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
                    --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

            One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
                     --- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

            We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
                    ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

        No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
                 ---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
            They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                     ---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

            To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
                     ---Alexander Hamilton

        [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
                 ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

        Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
                 ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

        Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
                 ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

        Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.  
        O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
           -- Patrick Henry
        [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
                 ---George Mason
        That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.  
           -- Virgina delegation recommended bill of rights

        The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
                 ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
        [C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.  
           -- Roger Sherman
                 14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

        Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries
        http://www.guncite.com/...

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
          -- St. George Tucker, Judge, Appointed by James Madison (father of the 2nd amendment).

        This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
         -- St. George Tucker, Judge, Appointed by James Madison (father of the 2nd amendment).  (Tucker's contemporaneous expositions have been cited by the supreme court in over 40 cases).

        The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
        , William Rawle, Jurist, appointed by George Washington, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829).

        The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

        The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
          -- Justice Story, Supreme Court Associate Justice, Appointed by James Madison, Father of the 2nd Amendment.

        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.
          -- Trench Coxe (1789)

            What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
        -- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, No. 29

        Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
         --- James Madison. Federalist No. 46

        Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
        http://www.guncite.com/...

        The 14th Amendment made the bill of rights binding on the states as well as the federal government.

        In the time of the founding fathers, not every adult was treated as a first class citizen and some have suggested that many were not allowed guns.    Women, blacks, and those who did not own property were not allowed to vote. Though women who owned property apparently could.  One source claimed those who did not support the revolution were apparently not allowed to own guns but another says they were sometimes confiscated for militia use during the revolution. Women were allowed guns and even required to have them if head of household.  Free blacks were allowed guns in some states and even slaves with the owner's permission in some states.  Poor men, not allowed to vote, were allowed guns and in some cases were even supplied them.   All  able bodied men 18-45 were not only permitted to own guns, they were required to own guns and ammo and join the organized militia, though those in certain professions providing essential service were exempt.   But being in the militia was never a requirement for owning guns.    They did even have something that one source (which gives an interesting history but seems to suffer from some serious factual errors concerning the time of the founding fathers) described as gun registration, to insure that the populace was fulfilling their responsibility to be armed, in that militia members had to check in; but women did not serve in the militia but were required to have guns if they were head of household and certain others may have been allowed guns but not be required to serve in the militia, like those under age or those who were not able bodied.  And checking in with your required gun was not the same as being required to present all your arms.  Nor were guns required to have serial numbers.  Household servents were in some cases required to be armed.   Indentured servants were required in several states to be given a gun when they completed their servitude.   Friendly indians were allowed to buy and bear arms for about a century before the revolution.  Apparently, in the days of the founding fathers gun ownership rights were considerably more universal than voting rights.
        http://www.volokh.com/...

         In the present day, where only 49% of adult men and 34% of adults own guns, registration of guns only exacerbates the weakness of the population at resisting government tyranny.
        http://www.volokh.com/...

        The facts, as Professor John M. Dederer notes, are that “by the 18th century, Americans were the most heavily armed people in the world.” (“War In America To 1775,” published in 1990). Indeed, all the Founding Fathers seem to have owned guns, specifically including George Washington (a gun collector), John Adams, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson (a gun collector and amateur gunsmith), Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine.
        ...
        Thomas Jefferson’s personal journal of great quotations reiterates Cesare Beccaria (“the father of criminlogy”) dismissing gun control as a “false idea of utility” because only the law abiding obey – leaving criminals armed.
        ...
        Mr. Kirsch is also apparently unaware that modern criminological studies concur that gun control disarms only the harmless while leaving criminals armed. After reviewing hundreds of studies the National Academy of Sciences (2004) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003) could not identify any gun control that had curbed violence, suicide or gun accidents. (See Charles F. Wellford, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review; National Academy of Sciences; 2004).
        ...
        In 2002 England’s National Crime Intelligence Service evaluated that nation’s handgun ban in terms that demonstrate Beccaria’s (and the Founders’) views. Its report stated that, while “Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so.”

        Connecticut Law Tribune: 18th-Century Americans Were Actually Well-Armed
        http://www.4forums.com/...

        So what do just these 5 things tell us? It is really quite simple. The Militia Act [of 1792] REQUIRED every citizen (who did not own a rifle) to own the Most Modern and Up to Date military small arm, Highest Rate of Fire, largest caliber, bayonet fitted, ASSAULT WEAPON.
        http://m14forum.com/...
        We already have the ability to trace most legally purchased firearms though records which federally licensed firearms dealers are required to retain.   Even those records, which can be confiscated by a rogue govenment, are dangerous.
        And guns purchased for use in crime normally are purchased on the black market.
        Myth: Other countries register guns to fight crime

        Fact: Most of these laws were enacted in the post World War I period to prevent civil uprisings as had occurred in Russia. A report of “Committee on the Control of Firearms,” written by British Home Office officials in 1918, was the basis for registration in the U.K., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. 88

        Fact: Though restrictions were few in the United States and the number of legally held handguns exceeded those on the Canadian side by a factor of ten, rates of homicide were
        virtually identical. 89
        ....

        Myth: Gun registration works

        Fact: Not in California. California has had handgun registration since 1909 92 and it has not any impact of violent crime rate. 93

        Fact: Not in New Zealand. They repealed their gun registration law in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness. 94

        Fact: Not in Australia. One report states, “It seems just to be an elaborate system of arithmetic with no tangible aim. Probably, and with the best of intentions, it may have been thought, that if it were known what firearms each individual in Victoria owned, some form of control may be
        exercised, and those who were guilty of criminal misuse could be readily identified. This is a fallacy, and has been proven not to be the case.” 95 In addition, cost to Australian taxpayers exceeded $200 million annually. 96

        Fact: Not in Canada. More than 20,000 Canadian gun-owners have publicly refused to register their firearms. Many others (as many as 300,000 97 ) are silently ignoring the law.
        ...
        • And all at a cost more than 1,646% the original projected cost 98 (the original cost was estimated at 5% of all police expenditures in Canada 99 ). "The gun registry as it sits right now is causing law abiding citizens to register their guns but it does nothing to take one illegal gun off the street or to increase any type of penalty for anybody that violates any part of the legislation," according to Al Koenig, President, Calgary Police Association. 100 "We have an
        ongoing gun crisis, including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them,"
        according to Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino . 101
        • The system is so bad that six Canadian provinces (British Columbia joins Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario) are refusing to prosecute firearm owners who fail to register. 102
        ...
        • A Saskatchewan MP who endorsed the long gun registry when first proposed has introduced legislation to abolish it stating that, “[the registry] has not saved one life in Canada, and it has been a financial sinkhole ... absolutely useless in helping locate the 255,000 people who have
        been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts.” 104

        Fact: Not in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany began comprehensive gun registration in 1972. The government estimated that between 17,000,000 and 20,000,000 guns were to be registered, but only 3,200,000 surfaced, leaving 80% unaccounted for. 105

        Fact: Not in Boston, Cleveland, or California. These cities and state require registration of “assault weapons.” The compliance rate in Boston and Cleveland is about 1%. 106

        Fact: Criminals don’t register their guns.

        Myth: Gun registration will help police find suspects

        Fact: Registration is required in Hawaii, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Yet there has not been a single case where registration was instrumental in identifying someone who committed a crime. 107 Criminals very rarely leave their guns at the scene of the crime. Would-be criminals
        also virtually never get licenses or register their weapons.

        Myth: Registration does not lead to confiscation

        Fact: It did in Canada. The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001. 108

        Fact: It did in Germany. The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came into power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came into power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

        Fact: It did in Australia. In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal weapons from their citizens.

        Fact: It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to shifting definitions of “assault weapons,” many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

        Fact: It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and “registered” owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

        Fact: It did in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia as well.

        Myth: Licensing will keep bad people from obtaining or
        using guns

        Fact: Not in Canada. Canadian homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented (151/100,000 people in 1998 and 149/100,000 in 2002). 109

        Fact: In New York State alone, approximately 100,000 persons are convicted of unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle each year, and this is probably a small proportion of the actual number of people who drive without a valid license. 110 Licensing requirements don’t stop
        ineligible people from driving, and they do not stop ineligible people from acquiring guns.

        Fact: As long as the unlicensed purchaser is never caught with the handgun, the unlawful sale will go unnoticed. The risk of detection is negligible. If the unlicensed handgun owner is arrested, he could claim that he did not need a license because he had owned this handgun before
        licensing went into effect. 111

        Fact: Currently, federal prosecutors do not eagerly accept felon-in-possession cases for prosecution unless the felon is a hardened criminal who represents a threat to the public. 112

        Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination. 113

        Fact: Prohibition (which started as a ‘moderation’ movement) didn’t keep people from drinking.  Instead it turned millions of otherwise honest and sober citizens into criminals, overnight.

        Fact: Most police do not see the benefit. “It is my belief that [licensing and registration] significantly misses the mark because it diverts our attention from what should be our common goal: holding the true criminals accountable for the crimes they commit and getting them off the street.” 114

        Fact: In 2005, agencies reported 1,400 arrests of persons denied a firearm or permit; but the U.S. Department of Justice accepted only 135 of those denial cases for prosecution. 115 Given the poor performance of the Federal government in prosecuting felons identified by an instant
        background check trying to buy firearms, there is little to support firearm licensing as a crime prevention measure.

        Gun Facts Version 6.1 - Copyright 2012, Guy Smith
        http://www.gunfacts.info/

        84% of police surveyed opposed the proposed 2013 Assault Weapons Ban:
        http://www.policemag.com/...
      •  registration is gateway to confiscation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DarthMeow504

        While anti-gun activists often poo-poo the idea that registration or other measures lead to confiscation when they are trying to get a measure passed, at other times they are captured on record being more candid about their criminal intent.

        Senator Diane "Assault weapons ban" Feinstein and New York Governor Cuomo both are proposing mandatory buy back/confiscation programs.   And not at fair market value.

        http://www.ammoland.com/...

        "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

        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

        "I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law--and I know this is extreme--that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns. It's ridiculous."
        --Rosie O'Donnell during interview with Carolyn McCarthy as quoted in the Ottawa, Sun, April 29, 1999, at 55

        "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 semi-assault 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)

        "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

        "Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase
        the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
          -- "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation" Josh Sugarmann, March 1989

        "Yes, I'm for an outright ban (on handguns)."
          -- Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

        "[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you
        what the rest of the camel looks like."
          -- HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993

        "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, and eventually 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

        "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."
        -- Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

        "No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!"
        -- Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH) during Constitution Subcommittee 2/10/89

        "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

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

        http://www.joebrower.com/...

        "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
        Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it's the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”
        http://newsbusters.org/...
    •  No one ever confiscated weapons in Australia. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hirodog, BlueStateRedhead

      Australia had a buy-back program. Why do we register ourselves with SocSec or the draft board? Why are we required to register to vote? Why is my car registered before I can buy it or drive it? This is a civilization. Too many people living in close proximity to have thousands of Rambo wannabees running loose anticipating their own personal 'Red Dawn' scenario. Today when law enforcement needs to track down a weapon they resort to the telephone. High tech. They call the manufacturer, who refers them to the gun dealer, who goes through a stack of forms looking for that weapon, and on and on. No database. No list of serial numbers. No data from background checks. No database on high volumes of ammo or body armor sold. Not a real efficient use of law enforcement time if your relative has been shot with that weapon.

    •  I've been registering my cars since 1978 (0+ / 0-)

      and nobody's shown up to take them away yet.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:51:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sounds like full employment to me! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Silvia Nightshade
  •  Emotion and Faith (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, phillies

    I have observed that many of the most vocal about gun control have more in common with religious zealots than informed citizens. Not all, mind you, and not a majority. But enough to warrant a comment.

    I have decided to name the zealots in this conflict the Followers of the Holy Gun on one side, and the Crusade Against Satan's Arsenal on the other. Holy Gunners versus CruSAders, if you will. If you are British, I think that a wonderful play on words can be derived from Arsenal and 'arse'. I'm American, so I will leave that one to the experts.

    I think that both groups are attempting to argue from emotion and faith. Reason, logic, and discussion have been long abandoned by these folks. They have reached the unfortunate status of True Believers, and are now immune to debate and reason. We as citizens will need to find a way to either reach these religious zealots, or move them to the back of the room so that the long, difficult discussion can begin.

    Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

    by IndyGlenn on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 09:56:35 AM PST

  •  Note: Hitler didn't ban guns in 1932 (5+ / 0-)

    We should at least get that much right.

    They CHANGED the gun registration laws in 1938, five years after coming to power.  JEWS were banned from having guns then but for everyone else it was either the same or easier than before to have one.

    And we should note that during all that time of legal gun ownership in Germany, the naturally freedom-loving gun owners never did a damn thing to oppose Hitler or win back democracy even though they had those freedom-guaranteeing guns in hand. Nothing.

    •  They Use A Fake Hitler Quote, So They "Know" This (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hirodog

      http://www.guncite.com/...

      Also, Germany wasn't supposed to have an arms industry under the Treaty of Versailles, so it was us that were demanding the Germans be disarmed.

      I've heard part of the German's efforts to regulate guns was to get WW1 guns in the early days of preparing for WW2.

      Anyway, there were 3 main legal actions under the Third Reich, all strikingly similar to laws favored by the GOP.
      1) 1933 Enabling Act - abolished trade unions, similar to GOP's "Right To Work" laws.
      2) 1935 Reich Local Government Law - abolished local governments, similar to the Michigans GOP's "Emergency Manager Law."
      3) 1935 Nuremberg Laws - Banned sex and marriage with Jews.  Rural Christians had demanded this law for 50 years, sort of like the GOP using DOMA to oppress gays.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 02:56:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Funny how the NRA draws out hitler like a gun... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    .....meanwhile the RW turrists, the Waco boys, McVeigh, tend to act out on or about 4/20.

    Coincidence??????

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:54:46 AM PST

  •  With respect to (0+ / 0-)

    "We are simply going to ban military weaponry"

    most of the 'assault weapons' bans as written, such as the Brady ban, specifically do not include most military rifles. Real assault rifles like the one I trained on have an "automatic" setting.

    Having said that, as it happens I am not a gun owner.  However, I find some of the arguments being advanced on the other side to be as fact-attached as the claim that Thomas Jefferson owned a machine gun (he actually owned several cannons, but so far as can be determined none of the in-period automatic weapons, most of which appear to have been ineffective with period machining and powder composition, other of course than the Da Vinci weapon.)

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 12:31:35 PM PST

  •  NRA has made guns more important than our children (0+ / 0-)

    How many more children must be shot before NRA can even open a discussion re: gun contol and citizen safety?

    •  False Dichotomy (4+ / 0-)

      The choice isn't between me excercising my rights in a manner that harms no one (that doesn't mean to harm me first,) and dead elementary school children. Me owning my weapons does not make you less safe.

      What makes you and I both less safe is violent crime, which is caused by poverty, mental illness and passion. While I think we all agree that our dealing with the first two needs to be looked at, homocide rates have been falling for 20 years. Gun homocides have been falling at an even steeper rate. This as the number of NICS checks for new purchases skyrockets.

      Further more, even if I was willing to accept government intrusion in the form of registration, the laws put forward to prevent more children from being shot would not work. A registry of law abiding gun owners will not make you more safe. The banning of large magazines and scary looking black guns will not make you more safe. Neither was necesary at V-Tech, and over a score of people died.

      I will not allow my privacy to be usurped, and my property exposed to possible confiscation after the NEXT shooting, so that others can push though invasive, ineffective bills that make them feel better about themselves.

      •  Your inability to even remotely understand why (0+ / 0-)

        teachers feel pressured to tote guns, even though it's againest every fiber of our understanding of how to teach childen just shows how insensitive gun owners are to the seriousness of this situation.

        •  I am perfectly able to understand. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dewley notid, drmah, DarthMeow504

          Some teachers are feeling pressured to carry at work because they would rather, if an armed killer attempts to kill them and their charges, be able to respond to force with force... instead of standing by helplessly. That isn't a reaction that everyone agrees with, but it's perfectly understandable.

          How then, am I and other gun owners "insensitive" to the seriousness of this situation. I am very serious about it, as the rights that others want to restrict are rights that I choose to excercise. Allowing myself to look at the situation rationally, rather than emotionally, as well as taking my own self interest into account, does not make me insensitive to the fears of teachers and others.

      •  if you lived in my neighborhood.... (0+ / 0-)

        or anywhere near my granddaughter's school (she's the same age as the kids that were killed in Newtown)...me and my neighbors would be asking you some hard questions....like....what do you need all that firepower for?....you keeping that stuff locked up?...and who else has access to all that firepower?....who else is living in the house with you?...Teenagers....anyone with a substance abuse problem....anybody mentally ill?

        sorry if I seem "nosy" or "intrusive" to you...but after what happened in Newtown...I have a RIGHT to ask you these questions...not only a RIGHT...but an OBLIGATION on behalf of my neighbors, my granddaughter, and her classmates....I will not hang my grandaughter's safety on some thin reed that you are "responsible" or "law-abiding"....hey....everyone of these mass shooters was "law-abiding" up until the moment they pumped that first round into another human being.

        According to everthing I've read about Nancy Lanza...the only reason she kept all that lethal firepower laying around her house was...."she loved her guns".....well...there are 20 sets of parents in Newtown that loved their children too.  Perhaps if somebody had taken it upon themselves to be a little "nosy" or "intrusive" and ask some commonsense questions of her...we could have possibly averted this horrific tragedy.

        sorry..but I believe in the 2nd Amendment...you move into my neighborhood...you're at least gonna be "well-regulated"

  •  You are forgetting the HAARP mind control rays (0+ / 0-)

    Obama will just focus them on one hickville area after another and the black UN helicopters will swoop in and take all the guns.

  •  Innteresting take (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for doing the math! I'm going to bookmark this one.

    Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 10:10:03 PM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site