Skip to main content

View Diary: Some House Republicans appear ready to back universal background checks for gun purchases (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So government confiscation is really a big fear? (7+ / 0-)

    When did California confiscate guns?

    •  It didn't. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doraphasia, Glen The Plumber, JayBat

      This is just more paranoia.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:56:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Late 1999/early 2000 (8+ / 0-)

      They sent a letter to California SKS owners who registered their firearms after the Attorney General decided that they didn't violate the state AWB: we changed our mind on these, turn them in or be charged with a felony. Most turned them in. IMO that constitutes confiscation.

      The best documentation of the incident is here: http://www.nrawinningteam.com/...

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:09:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many people who did not comply were charged (5+ / 0-)

        ... with felonies?

        I don't think the NRA is a very good source for facts on these matters.

      •  So the fear is that the government will (0+ / 0-)

        prevent gun owners from owning illegal weapons?  

        To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

        by sneakers563 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:42:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The SKS was legal. (6+ / 0-)

          Then it was registered.
          Then, once they were registered and known (location wise), they were made illegal.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:53:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. So the desire is to be able to keep (0+ / 0-)

            illegal weapons.

            To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

            by sneakers563 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 12:58:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Try again. (0+ / 0-)

              The point is to make sure it's not felt that firearms will easily be made illegal. Registration comes FIRST. Without registration, how will they know where they are?

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:42:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Semantics? (0+ / 0-)

                So an elected government requires registration of firearms.  Later, that government decides that for safety reasons, some firearms should be illegal, and passes a law to that effect.  The previous registration means that the government has an easier time collecting the now-illegal firearms.

                Is it not true that gun owners oppose registration in order to thwart the action in that last statement?  It doesn't matter when registration happens; at the time confiscation occurs, the firearm is illegal.  Therefore, opposition to registration comes from the desire to be able to retain an illegal firearm.  

                To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

                by sneakers563 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 06:04:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not just semantics. (0+ / 0-)

                  You're still looking at it the wrong way.

                  The purpose of registration is to make confiscation easier and is a necessary step. So without registration, confiscation loses what little feasibility it has.

                  So if there's no registration, confiscation is less likely to happen, if at all.

                  Prevent one to make the other less likely to happen.

                  Did I explain myself well enough?

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 06:10:18 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The fear is a bait and switch... (7+ / 0-)

          ...and that the proponents of these laws actually have the long term goal of banning firearms altogether.

          Which, given a lot of the rhetoric on this website the last few months, is not an unreasonable fear.

          ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
          My Blog
          My wife's woodblock prints

          by maxomai on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:37:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right, and the day that folks on this website will (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, FogCityJohn

            ... represent a majority of population will be when again?

            •  You're missing the point (5+ / 0-)

              There's enough "ban them all" rhetoric out there, both on this website and in the general public, so that, when the gun control side says "we don't want to take your guns away," the gun rights side has sufficient reason not to believe them.

              They assume you're negotiating in bad faith.

              Hence, pretty much every proposal is going to be spun in a bad light, and if they see potential for abuse, they will interpret such abuse as the intention of the law.

              Keep in mind, I'm saying this as someone who supports universal background checks.

              ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
              My Blog
              My wife's woodblock prints

              by maxomai on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:35:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That may be true, but what a sad commentary. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite, FogCityJohn, Bluesee, JayBat

                There is no evidence that the government is coming to take away guns anytime soon or in the foreseeable future.

                It is an irrational fear driven by propaganda and propagandists of the worst sort.

                •  Sorry, that's revisionism on your part. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, KVoimakas

                  There is no evidence that the government is coming to take away guns anytime soon or in the foreseeable future.

                  There is historical evidence to suggest that this is not an unreasonable fear. It wasn't in the UK and it wasn't in California. There is also the past and present rhetoric of the people who are engaged in current gun control efforts

                  So, you're wrong on that point.

                  You are also, therefore, wrong on the point of this being simply an irrational fear being driven by propaganda.

                  Your attempts to spin this away say really horrible things about you.

                  ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                  My Blog
                  My wife's woodblock prints

                  by maxomai on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:12:12 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I asked you before about California. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    a2nite, JayBat

                    How many people were prosecuted under that directive and what was the ultimate outcome?

                    You and your compatriots have fallen for the bullshit. You're living in fear of... In fear of... In fear of...

                    A GHOST!

                    BOO!!!

                    •  So let me see here...because they were only (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KenBee, ban nock, KVoimakas, zett

                      ordered to register a legal gun and then they were told that same gun was now illegal and they must turn it in or be charged with a crime....but because they were never prosecuted, you say it never occurred, that it never happened and that confiscation could never, ever be a possibility?

                      My view is that in the case of California.....it came very, very close to that point...regardless if they were not prosecuted or not.  The fact that most of them ended up turning in those guns and losing the rights to own it forever...under THREAT of prosecution, is just as much a confiscation, as it would have been if authorities had beat down their door to get them.

                      The tool they used to confiscate was registration and threat of prosecution.....they just never had to prosecute anyone, because most complied as directed.

                      So it is faulty and misleading to say it never occurred, under the premise of lack of jail time or charges filed for legal gun owners, who mistakenly believed that registering their legal gun would never turn them into criminals one day.

                      •  Proof? (0+ / 0-)

                        How many guns were turned in? How many refused? How many were prosecuted. How many guns from those who refused were confiscated? Did it stand up in court?

                        You just finished telling me in another thread that confiscation won't happen.

                        So what's your point?

                        Is the government coming for your guns?

                        •  I told my opinion in this thread, not another. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KenBee

                          I don't think confiscation will happen only on a background check only law, and that's what were discussing....as background checks are already done federally in all dealer sales.

                            If registration were tied to a new national law....that's a different story, and I would have a different view of it.

                           I would not be for it, I would not think it is right, I might not even comply....not sure, as it hasn't happened yet.  I do know, that I agree with others...if registration became a reality, I would want a part of that law to have a written guarantee that it would never go beyond the registration.  Confiscation would be a legal impossibility by the same law promoting registration....a promise in writing that any gun I register would never be taken.

                          With that said, I don't think registration itself will ever pass nationally, in this political climate.  Could that change?  Perhaps.....I just don't think it will pass. I'm glad about that.

                •  I find it similar to those on this site (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite

                  Who think the government is on a slippery slope to using drones to kill all dissenters.

              •  And I will add that I have seen this precise kind (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                ... of "the-government-is-coming-to-take-my-guns" paranoia on this website, much of it today in this diary and in noway2's diary.

          •  Guns could be banned either way ("someday"). (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sneakers563

            So in that mystical "someday" which doesn't seem to be coming anytime soon. . . Whether they're banned or not has nothing to do with whether or not it would be easy to confiscate them through a registered list.

            Would you keep any guns that were made illegal if you weren't on a registered list? Anyone who answers "yes" to this not only should have to register their guns but probably shouldn't have them because that's criminal intent.

      •  One person was arrested (0+ / 0-)

        there is no record of his weapon being confiscated. Nobody else's weapons were confiscated. And I don't know that you are correct that gun owners were encouraged, much less required to turn them in.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site