In 1 minute, california gun owners go from Law abiding citizens to felons, without firing a shot...

[Uncensored2008]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

crazy Cali can do whatever they want, they are the land of pussies After all...

California has more real men than any other place in the USA.

You're not one of them, pajama boi.

 

[Tax Man]

crazy Cali can do whatever they want, they are the land of pussies After all...[/QUOTE]
California has more real men than any other place in the USA.[/QUOTE]

You're not one of them, pajama boi.[/QUOTE]
Would you really like to find out in person? No ring just fist to fist.

 

[Rustic]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

crazy Cali can do whatever they want, they are the land of pussies After all...

California has more real men than any other place in the USA.

Lol
Na, Not really

 

[Rustic]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

AR15s are just sporting rifles...

What sport are they designed for? Murder of the enemy. No deer or elephant needs to be shot 15 times.

You don’t understand firearms do you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

They haven't been confiscated YET

There is no need for the government to know if you own guns

So when are they going to be confiscated? How long is this going to take?

I don't pretend to know the future

There is no other reason for the government to want to know if a law abiding citizen owns a gun

Are you sure about that? So if I shoot someone and throw the gun in the river, how will they know its mine if its not registered to me?

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

 

[2aguy]

So when are they going to be confiscated? How long is this going to take?

I don't pretend to know the future

There is no other reason for the government to want to know if a law abiding citizen owns a gun

Are you sure about that? So if I shoot someone and throw the gun in the river, how will they know its mine if its not registered to me?

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

He doesn't know what he is talking about and I would directly reply to his post if I new which number it was...so....

From Canada where they tried to register just long guns....and other points on the stupidity of a gun registration list....particularly when it comes to solving crimes......

Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.
Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.




3/24/18



https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[dudmuck]

 

[danielpalos]

But it is still illegal for those criminals to own the illegal guns. It's not as if Haynes gave people permission to own firearms illegally.

actually a felon is not obligated to register a firearm the SC has ruled that it doing so violates their 5th amendment rights

Yes....because registering would be self-incriminating, because the felon owning a gun is a crime. The USSC ruling did not make the felon owning the gun perfectly legal, it just made it so that said felon cannot be charged for not registering as well as illegally owning the gun.

so why write a law that does not target the criminal but rather only the law abiding

I didn't write the law, I'm just pointing out that the USSC ruling did not make it legal for criminals to own guns.

i am saying that registration laws only target the law abiding

I agree to disagree. Anyone caught with Arms without registration, would be in more serious trouble.

 

[Asclepias]

So when are they going to be confiscated? How long is this going to take?

I don't pretend to know the future

There is no other reason for the government to want to know if a law abiding citizen owns a gun

Are you sure about that? So if I shoot someone and throw the gun in the river, how will they know its mine if its not registered to me?

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't pretend to know the future

There is no other reason for the government to want to know if a law abiding citizen owns a gun

Are you sure about that? So if I shoot someone and throw the gun in the river, how will they know its mine if its not registered to me?

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

 

[Asclepias]

Are you sure about that? So if I shoot someone and throw the gun in the river, how will they know its mine if its not registered to me?

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then why not register every other weapon that can be used to commit murder?

I mean if you beat someone to death with a baseball bat and throw it in the river how are the cops going to know it's yours?

Registering guns has nothing to do with the murder rate

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

 

[Asclepias]

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

So we are back to crimes.

I thought you said registration wasn't about crime.

There is no need for the government to know who owns a gun just like there is no need for the government to know who owns a club, a knife, a brick, a 2x4 or anything else that can be used to commit murder

 

[Asclepias]

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

So we are back to crimes.

I thought you said registration wasn't about crime.

There is no need for the government to know who owns a gun just like there is no need for the government to know who owns a club, a knife, a brick, a 2x4 or anything else that can be used to commit murder

We never left crimes.

Thats correct. Its about having the ability to trace the gun to an owner.

Yes there is a reason for the government to know who owns a gun. I just told you why.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

So we are back to crimes.

I thought you said registration wasn't about crime.

There is no need for the government to know who owns a gun just like there is no need for the government to know who owns a club, a knife, a brick, a 2x4 or anything else that can be used to commit murder

We never left crimes.

Thats correct. Its about having the ability to trace the gun to an owner.

Yes there is a reason for the government to know who owns a gun. I just told you why.

So you tell me you never said gun registration was about reducing crime now it's all about crime

If there is a need for the governemnt to know who owns guns because of crime then it is just as necessary for the governemnt to know who owns knives, clubs, or anything else that can be used to kill

We don't have gun registration now and yet cops still find murderers.

 

[Asclepias]

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

There would be if you shot someone and tossed it in a river.

Nope. The question has remained the same. To summarize ..... How would they track down who the gun owner was?

Even if that were true the question remains the same you are the murderer and the gun owner.

Because I wanted to. Can you answer the question?

I just told you.

So we are back to crimes.

I thought you said registration wasn't about crime.

There is no need for the government to know who owns a gun just like there is no need for the government to know who owns a club, a knife, a brick, a 2x4 or anything else that can be used to commit murder

We never left crimes.

Thats correct. Its about having the ability to trace the gun to an owner.

Yes there is a reason for the government to know who owns a gun. I just told you why.

So you tell me you never said gun registration was about reducing crime now it's all about crime

If there is a need for the governemnt to know who owns guns because of crime then it is just as necessary for the governemnt to know who owns knives, clubs, or anything else that can be used to kill

We don't have gun registration now and yet cops still find murderers.

Correct. Gun registration has jack shit to do with reducing crime. Its simply a means of locating who owns the weapon.

Thats called faulty logic. Just because they want to keep track of the most efficient killing tool doesnt mean we have to be silly and track dumb shit like baseball bats or paper clips.

Not true. We do have gun registration and its pretty good at finding the owners.

 

[Hum Dinger]

When were they told to register the assault weapons? Yesterday? Usually you know at least by the 1rst of the year.

What law says they are going to later be confiscated?

The fact that they want to register the guns.... the only reason to register guns is for later confiscation.....there is no other reason.

My guns are registered and they havent been confiscated. Please show me where they are going to confiscate the guns. I cant depend on your conspiracy theories. Also you didnt answer when these people were told to register their assault weapons. Why are you stalling?

They aren't conspiracy theories...... the Germans registered their guns in the 20s and didn't confiscate until the late 1930s......

Do you understand that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns...per the Supreme Court ruling Haynes v United States...which means you have to register your gun, while they don't have to....and you think that is just a genius policy....

It means that criminals can not be charged for not registering their guns, it does not mean that they can not be charged with illegally owning a gun.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I didnt say registering guns has anything to do with the murder rate. I said how would they locate the owner of the gun used in the crime? A baseball bat was not created to shoot people. it was created to play baseball with. Requiring that people to register an instrument created specifically to do harm to a living entity doesnt mean other tools that could possibly be used to harm someone should be registered. This is not an all or nothing deal. It would be incredibly stupid to have people register say a fork or a rock or as you specified a baseball bat. You think government is large now. What do you think would happen if they took your suggestion to register bats?

You specifically used murder as an example

So just so we are clear here you don't care if people get murdered unless it's with a gun right?

The fact is 99.999% of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone so you want all those people to register their guns even though virtually none of them will be used in a murder

Gun control is not and has never been about reducing crime

And a baseball bat is a club the club has been a weapon far longer than guns have even been around.

I dont care what I used as an example. I asked you how would the cops be able to trace the gun back to you in the event you tossed it into the river?

Who cares?

I for one don't toss my guns into rivers.

The registration of guns has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Cops/detectives do for starters.

I didnt ask what you did with your gun. I asked you how would the cops trace it back to you.

Irrelevant. Its a hypothetical situation.

This is the second time I have had to correct you. I never said gun registration had anything to do with crime prevention.

There would never be a need to trace any of my guns back to me.

Wow you really like to move the goal posts around

you asked me how would the cops find a murderer if he threw his gun in the river

If you weren't concerned about crime why use the murder example?

Why does the government need to trace any gun back to an owner ?

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to law enforcement to be able to determine if a gun that was used in a crime was NOT registered. That, in turn could lead to tracing out how illegal firearms are reaching the public.

 

[jon_berzerk]

actually a felon is not obligated to register a firearm the SC has ruled that it doing so violates their 5th amendment rights

Yes....because registering would be self-incriminating, because the felon owning a gun is a crime. The USSC ruling did not make the felon owning the gun perfectly legal, it just made it so that said felon cannot be charged for not registering as well as illegally owning the gun.

so why write a law that does not target the criminal but rather only the law abiding

I didn't write the law, I'm just pointing out that the USSC ruling did not make it legal for criminals to own guns.

i am saying that registration laws only target the law abiding

I agree to disagree. Anyone caught with Arms without registration, would be in more serious trouble.

except for the criminal the Supreme Court has ruled that felons can not be compelled to register firearms so they can not be charged

for a crime for failing to do so