"-we don’t want to take away guns and that we are pro second amendment"

[Dano4734]

Jamie lee curtis.. well I hope so with the hockey mask guy chasing her for 30 years every halloween

[spacemanspiff]

I finally watched the video interview from Variety.

Apparently one of their goals is to pass a law requiring all guns to be locked up. Not sure how they expect enforcement of such a law.
And then when she said something about how people go to Indiana to buys guns from retail stores and then bring them back to Chicago and sell them for 5x their original value, would love too see the source for that information.

It looked like she was more enthusiastic about how she was being treated like a celebrity doing a photo shoot.

I will have to look up more videos, as I recall one of those kids saying during that big March for Our Lives event that they would not stop until they had banned all guns. Can't recall exactly who said it.

[DaleA]

I am not that familiar with Variety magazine. I know it mostly from old movies where they splash a copy of Variety magazine on the screen with a headline usually showing the star of the movie has succeeded.

I was very much surprised that the overwhelming number, (in fact almost all) of comments to the Variety story (there are 42 comments today 10/22/2018) are pro-gun and NOT pro-gun control. It cheered me up.

[USNRet93]

Since there is no 'gun registry' in the USA, and even if enacted tomorrow, it would mean nothing because of the guns already in people's possession, I don't get the 'they are gonna take our guns away' argument..How would they do that? Search every household in the US? Confused.

[Wag]

If they ever do pass any such legislation, I'd be happy to register or surrender all my guns except that they were all lost in a tragic boating accident a couple of years ago. Never could recover them.

--Wag--

[44 AMP]

Since there is no 'gun registry' in the USA,

So you say...I think an argument could be made that there is one. But at the moment, it is fractured, disjointed, not even remotely all inclusive or currently accurate. But that could be changed. All it takes is a law or two and some money.


First point, leaving aside, for the moment, those states that actually DO have a registration system, every gun that has passed through an FFL dealer in the last 50 years has had a record created. 4473 form, at a minimum, for every sale. Dealer's bound book for inventory, etc. Currently these records are on paper, and are held by the dealers, but they do exist. Dealers who go out of business are required to send their records to the ATF, and they are warehoused. CURRENTLY, the ATF cannot compile those records onto computers, but as I said, all it takes is the govt deciding it needs doing and providing the money to do it with.

Every gun sold that has gone through the "instant check" system, there is a record, of YOU buying a gun. Not a "J. Doe 123 Mainstreet hometown USA bought S&W .38 cal ser# xxxxxx" record (though there ARE state records that do that in some places) but a record that J.Doe bought a gun...

And while there are laws covering what the govt can do with that data, and how long then can keep it, etc., forgive my doubt about the govt always following all their rules, all the time...

We don't have a comprehensive, cohesive nationwide system available to LEOs at the their fingertips, YET, but the basic building blocks are in place, and have been for some time.

Sure, there are millions of old guns that are totally "off the books", and doing house to house searches to find them isn't likely (not even remotely cost effective in so many ways..AT THIS TIME), but they don't need to.

[USNRet93]

Every gun sold that has gone through the "instant check" system, there is a record, of YOU buying a gun. Not a "J. Doe 123 Mainstreet hometown USA bought S&W .38 cal ser# xxxxxx" record (though there ARE state records that do that in some places) but a record that J.Doe bought a gun

Not arguing but not true. That instant check means J. Doe has passed the back ground check, not that ‘J’ bought a gun. He probably does it to buy a gun but it doesn’t mean that happened. You are correct retailers have records, but they are local, not ‘government’ records. I just rankle when I hear, ‘they are gonna take our guns away’...just not accurate. Focus on meaningful things, imho.

[44 AMP]

That instant check means J. Doe has passed the back ground check, not that ‘J’ bought a gun. He probably does it to buy a gun but it doesn’t mean that happened.

Agreed, its not a certainty J.Doe bought a gun, but why run the check if he isn't? Will dealers even run the check without the a commitment to a sale, when the check is passed? Granted, J.Doe could change his mind, after the check, and not buy a gun, but for gun control purposes, it doesn't matter.

the name will be in the database because the check was run, and they will assume he bought a gun, because of that, and the only time it will make a difference is when they search his house, find no gun, and claim he had one, anyway. Remember we're talking a future here where the law has "taken them away"...

And, I'm not so sure that the dealers 4473s aren't legally "govt records", just held at the dealers location. Certainly they are not the dealer's private property, otherwise he would be able to dispose of then any time he felt like it, and that's not the case.

The ATF (or other LEOs) can view the records during the course of an investigation (though they do have to physically visit the dealer to do so, unless he voluntarily provides them to the LEO office. And the ATF can "inspect" all records without a specific investigation, on a scheduled basis.

So, here's the thing, the records exist, but not in a centralized computer system at this time. The problem is that the situation could change.

IF there ever is a law(s) that do "take our guns away" don't expect the current standards of criminal justice and citizens rights to be applied as they are today.

[USNRet93]

So, here's the thing, the records exist, but not in a centralized computer system at this time. The problem is that the situation could change.

IF there ever is a law(s) that do "take our guns away" don't expect the current standards of criminal justice and citizens rights to be applied as they are today.

Agree but as I mentioned, using this 'fear' as a political sound bite does nothing more than rile up the base, on both sides of the issue.

BTW..I was in my small, local gun shop, waiting for my BG check to come through..waiting with another gent. When Jason announced we were both 'good to go', the other gent said he changed his mind and walked out(?)..yup, very strange, I thought, as I passed my CC over...

[Wag]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...forgive my doubt about the govt always following all their rules, all the time...

This. It's the reason we have to be vigilant, always.

--Wag--

[Tom Servo]

The phrase "I'm a gun owner, but..." is the new "I'm not a racist, but..."

It came into use following the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. As far as I can tell, it was first used in a strategy pamphlet distributed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It suggested using that phrase so as not to sound intimidating. They were also behind the push to rebrand "gun control" as "gun safety."

Whenever someone uses that phrase, it should be an instant indicator that they're reading from a scripted set of talking points.

[JERRYS.]

don't be fooled by wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JERRYS.

don't be fooled by wolves in sheep's clothing.

Shakespeare wrote, in The Merchant of Venice, "The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." This refers to Jesus' encounter with Satan, recounted in Matthew 4:1-11. Satan tries to goad Jesus into displays of His power by quoting from Scripture.

As one pastor expresses it,

In today’s world, when we use this quotation, we are pointing to our or our opponent’s ability to search Scriptures looking only for passages that support what they already believe. We see the Bible quoted on both sides of many political and social arguments – war, immigration, women’s rights. It is possible within the 62 books of the Protestant Bible to find passages that speak to both sides of an issue.

We can extrapolate from this to the gun control issue, and see that the anti-gun forces (which we can liken to Satan) attempting to use language (akin to "scripture') against us. After all, only a maniac would oppose "gun safety," right?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...ongued%20devil