I suppose you pointedly ignored the fact that registration did become outright bans in Chicago and Washington D.C., and led to confiscations in Canada, England, Australia and Germany in the past.
Diane Feinstein, Sarah Brady (and the group she leads HCI/Brady Campaign), Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer have all demonstrated time and again that their view of ‘reasonable restrictions’ changes daily so that it is always one step closer from where we are now to a total ban.
Celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Michael Douglas have all thrown their two cents in about ordinary citizens not being allowed to own firearms at all - as long as they get to retain their armed body guards.
In Diane Feinstein’s own words:
And San Francisco is poised to join the bandwagon of cities who previously registered handguns and will follow through with a ban, if Proposition H passes. It gives current handgun owners until Jan 1, 2006 to dispose of their handguns, since all private ownership of handguns will be illegal after that date.
How many times, in how many cities, does registration have to be followed with bans and confiscations and “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them in.” before you will finally admit that it isn’t paranoia when someone really is out to get you.
The guns were registered, then they were confiscated when the locals thought it a good idea. I am sure confiscation was not on the local officials or YOUR mind when you/they cooked up their plan to register guns. I am sure they thought as you do that they would somehow stop crime or something. In the end however, the locals have found it easier to disarm the public, who have committed no crime, and are using their registration lists to make sure they are efficient about it. How can you not see the connection? Without the lists of registered guns, the best the cops could do is ask if someone owns a gun. That person tells the cop “NOPE” and they moveon to the next house.
You are killing me here. Registration CAN and HAS lead to confiscation. Where is that statement wrong? Governments CANNOT be trusted to keep those lists. What is happening in NOLA can happen in CA after the next earthquake or NYC after the next terrorist act. Registration is a bullshit way to deal with a problem by limp wristed politicians trying to be “tough on crime” all the while not making a dent in criminal activities.
There is so much wrong with this posting I don’t know where to start!
You are in a house with a day’s rations left - why aren’t you leaving?
You propose to get into a gun battle with an armed gang? Ask your kids if they would rather do that or move out!
But the worst thing is your automatic assumption that, because you have some food and the gang doesn’t, you should stop them getting it by using force. In ALL the other parts of the world, the natural reaction would be to share resources and help each other, whether criminal or not. Even the Yakuza provided help to the victims during the Kobe earthquake.
The sad thing is that you could have put together a much better case for having a gun (though even that would still be flawed). What you have actually said illustrates the most important reason for disarming America - the attitude of the American people.
In many other countries gun ownership does not go with high levels of gun crime. You would be quite right to say that owning a gun does not make you a murderer. What does is this strange American survivalist idea that society is about ‘every man for himself’. This is what the world saw in the corrupt failure of preparation for this disaster, the failure to act and collapse of order when it hit, and the surreal images of an army marching through NO before any relief was offered.
Arguments about the details of gun control are irrelevant. What we should be considering is the American psyche, that strange mixture of arrogance and fear which compells the US to consider force as the first and only answer to any question. Guns are hardly needed at all in a well-balanced society.
I don’t propose to get in a gun battle. But I could if I had to.
And yes, I would defend my house and my life rather then let it be left to armed thugs.
Run if you like, and hope the Government will help you. I’ll keep what I have.
How do you know all of them were registered? Were no illegal weapons confiscated? Or were those given back to the criminals? Unregistered guns that were confiscated were obviously not confiscated as a result of registration. QED
Here is where your logic breaks down. You have proved that guns were registered. You have proved that guns were confiscated. But you have failed to prove that confiscation was the result of registration. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
You obviously are not understanding that I do not care whether the intended plan was to confiscate the weapons AFTER they were registered. The bottom line, according to my CITE, is that registered weapons were confiscated for reasons that the local authorities thought just. These registered weapons are now in the posession of the NOLA police or who knows what authority. Were those weapons NOT registered, the police would not have known where to look.
Your idea may not be to ban or confiscate guns. Facts and histroy are showing us that the best intentions fall upon deaf ears when “emergencies” arise. Keep on telling us how one does not “logically” lead to the other. I’ll keep watching the news and see homeowners with their doors busted in while the cops look for registered guns.
Is it your contention that registered weapons, and **only ** registered weapons, were confiscated? How did the cops know where to confiscate the unregistered guns?
I don’t know. The article spoke of cops confiscating registered guns. I am not avoiding anything. I am not there and I have to rely on news accounts that have chosen to focus on the registered guns being confiscated.
Your super plan involves registering all weapons. With that in mind, the unregistered guns have nothing to do with this painful discussion.
Unregistered guns have everything to do with your contention that registration leads to confiscation. If any unregistered guns were confiscated, they must have been located and seized without the aid of registration records. And if this was possible with unregistered guns, it is possible that all the guns were located and confiscated by other means. You have simply not proven that registration leads to confiscation.
Fear Itself, it’s obvious, the cops used a physic to find the unregistered guns :rolleyes: Wow, just wow.
I can’t seem to find the original thread. Was there really a ‘door to door’ confiscation? Or did the NOLA just dis-arm people walking around with weapons?
As far as DTC’s shmoe, Dirty Harry comment.
If you knew anything about people, you would understand that armed thugs are not likely to attack a home that have people in it that can defend themselves with lethal force.
I completely understand that the odds of ever having to defend my home against people is vanishingly small. I have used guns to scare bears off of my property.
I was responding to Spectators comment -
Things are not always so cut and dried. For myself, in winter it would be much quicker to arm myself, than to get enough clothes on to go outside and survive. As I really, really, really doubt that any average thug would stick around once they know you have a gun, I’ll take that option. It’s not Dirty Harry, its common sense.
If the person Is just plain determined to kill you, you’re probably fucked either way. Still I’ll take option one.
You can remain obsitinate as long as you would like. From my cite that now requires registration:
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons,* including legally registered firearms, *from civilians in preparation for a mass forced evacuation of the residents still living here.
Even though the guns were registered, and the people had done no wrong, the cops knew where the guns were and who owned them. The guns are now confiscated. I have stated several times that I am sure that the initial plan when the registration idea was forced onto people was to “stop crime” through superior record keeping. When push came to shove however, the cops thought it a better idea to seize known legal guns, along with any other guns they could find.
Your plan will never catch on with the mainstream gun owner. Even as you tirelessly try to use logic to show that the registered guns were not confiscated because they were registered, the public will not soon forget the images of masked para-military dressed police officers, breaking down the doors of homes, registration lists in hand. “Don’t forget what happened in New Orleans” will now be added to “See what happened in Australia” and “They took Britain’s guns away too”. You go ahead and use your logic to tell people the guns weren’t confiscated. I wish you good luck. The best thing for pro gun people is for those clamoring for more control, especially through registration, to keep chasing their tails in a battle of logic.
Sadly, you are right. Even though the facts show registration does not lead to confiscation, some gun owners are easily frightened by exaggeration and outright fabrications into believing in unwarranted and unsupportable conspiracies. Unfortunately, critical thinking is the first victim of fear. That’s why the fight against ignorance is taking so long.
Wasn’t there an article, in this thread, where registered guns were confiscated? Then how is it a theory? It’s a fact. Just because they confiscated unregistered guns as well does not take away from the fact that legally owned guns were taken away by a police force/government.
