Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA paints itself into a corner on background checks (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not pointing to Switzerland. (0+ / 0-)

    My analogy is sound. It sounds just like "if you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about."

    Which I'm REALLY hoping you don't agree with.

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

    by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:04:53 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Actually I do agree that there is nothing to worry (9+ / 0-)

      about concerning gun registration.  Government knows my income, the house and car I own, where I bank (and is one warrant away from knowing every transaction in those accounts), and so on.  Why shouldn't it know about my guns?

    •  Your analogy is not sound because you're (12+ / 0-)

      equating UNLIMITED and WARRANTLESS prying by government into every aspect of one's life with a gun registry.

      •  The argument is the same. (0+ / 0-)
        I don't understand why a responsible legal (18+ / 0-)
        gun owner would have any problem with a registry anyway.

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

        by KVoimakas on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 02:46:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You haven't actually stated an argument. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          Why would a responsible legal
          gun owner would have any problem with a gun registry?

          It sure can't be the same reason why I might have a problem with UNLIMITED and WARRANTLESS prying by government into every aspect of my life.

          So, state your argument.

          Silvio Levy

          •  The argument is that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andalusi

            you have nothing to fear if you're doing nothing illegal.

            Privacy? That's a good reason for the government not to know what I own, not to mention that registration has led to confiscation. I'd rather not see that again.

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

            by KVoimakas on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 02:26:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I didn't say you have nothing to fear. (0+ / 0-)

              I said you have nothing to fear from a registry of guns in a democratic United States, with all the safeguards that such a registry would have, should it ever be mandated. And you haven't offered a shred of evidence for the opposing point of view. I don't know what examples of registration leading to confiscation you mean; in all cases I know of confiscation, unregistered guns were confiscated too.

              •  SKS, Cali. (0+ / 0-)

                There's one example for you.

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

                by KVoimakas on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:10:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You frequently point to this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  yet never substantiate your claim. How about a link? Even the World Net Daily (fine company you're keeping there) article can't make a claim of any actual instance of confiscation. If I'm wrong here's your chance to enlighten me.

                  One of the more famous arrestees was James Dingman of Santa Clara for possession of an unregistered SKS rifle with a fixed magazine. He also bought an after-market detachable magazine kit for the gun.

                  Although the state’s Department of Justice said Dingman didn’t have to register his “fixed magazine” SKS — even if he placed a detachable magazine on it — he was arrested because local law enforcement mistakenly identified it as a gun that needed to be registered.

                  After a number of appearances in court as well as appeals, the
                  California Supreme Court agreed to review Dingman’s case. It is still awaiting a decision today.

                  Note he was arrested. Nowhere does it say his gun was taken and not returned. Or are you suggesting that if police hold your gun while you are in custody for suspicion of a crime that that constitutes "confiscation?" If that's true I marvel you are not up in arms about police "confiscating" driver's licenses at weekend check points.
                •  Here's more contemporaneous info (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener

                  on that supposedly legendary case of "confiscation..."

                  http://www.sfgate.com/...

                  "I looked at the gun," said Edward Peterson, a former federal firearms expert and now crime lab specialist for the Santa Clara County district attorney. "It was an SKS. It had a detachable magazine. Therefore, it was an "SKS with detachable magazine.' I was surprised when (Lungren's office) said it wasn't and they started coming up with all these crackpot ideas."
                  •  I have no links that you would accept. (0+ / 0-)

                    Amazing how it's the pro-firearm sites that would keep evidence of such yet aren't acceptable to cite.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 05:55:03 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How about court documents? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      If the police took weapons and didn't give them back, that would assuredly be a matter of public record. Even if a "pro-firearm" site reports it, there has to be a record of the gun confiscation. Who had their guns taken? Was it the one arrest that has been reported or someone else? How many guns? How long were they held or were they taken and never returned? What specifically is the definition that "pro-firearms" sources use when discussing "confiscation?"

                      Beyond being "acceptable" to cite, the citations would have to stand up to scrutiny. That's what you are trying to avoid, when you whine about how mean people are. Don't hide behind double-secret fingers crossed sources. Man up and share it with the community or stop making claims you simply can't back up with proof.

                      •  link (0+ / 0-)

                        here

                        A forced buyback is confiscation, by the way.

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

                        by KVoimakas on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:45:15 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ROFL (0+ / 0-)

                          First of all, just. No. "Forced buyback" (who did the forcing? Cite one example of a person brought in by law enforcement and forced to submit their weapon. Words matter. You said "forced." Prove this happened. You've had 13 years to gather the facts, so I don't mind waiting.

                          Moreover confiscation means a taking WITHOUT REMUNERATION OF ANY KIND. You say "forced." Was anyone ever arrested, tried or convicted for non-compliance? I doubt it or they'd be the 2nd Amendment Absolutists version of Jesus after 13 years. But even if that happened, if the government gave them some money in return, it's really not my idea of confiscation, which I understand to mean police or military showing up at a private home or business and seizing property without any implication of returning the seized items. Confiscation doesn't just mean taking, it means keeping. Getting something back for a gun the government declares retroactively illegal is hardly a case for confiscation. But here's the thing: YOU CAN'T PROVE THIS HAPPENED EVEN ONCE. Seriously. I need a name, a place, a date before I'll grant your hypothetical panic a shred of respect.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site