BATFE ACKNOWLEDGES A NATIONWIDE DATABASE OF GUN OWNERS

[USMCJG]

Did you not read what I said? I returned them to their rightful owners.

My mistake. I must have misread your post.

[redfsr]

My mistake. I must have misread your post.

No prob. I need to simmer down. I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone and after re-reading my posts it sure seems like I am. That is the problem with communicating in an internet forum.

[G27]

I've met many ATF agents (am close friends with some) and don't know of any one of them that are anti-gun. In fact, most are gun collectors themselves and will tell you to spend your last dollar on a gun if you want. Their main mission is combating violent crime and if you aren't a violent felon, gang member, dealing drugs, dealing firearms without a license or illegally dealing firearms to prohibited persons, you shouldn't be in fear of them. Like I've said before, hate on the politicians that are being elected and appointed. I know some of them don't even support some of the NFA regulations but politicians made the rules.

I doubt many here have a problem with the agents themselves, but rather the ATF leadership's rather illustrious history...

[Guest jimdigriz]

I've met many ATF agents (am close friends with some) and don't know of any one of them that are anti-gun. In fact, most are gun collectors themselves and will tell you to spend your last dollar on a gun if you want. Their main mission is combating violent crime and if you aren't a violent felon, gang member, dealing drugs, dealing firearms without a license or illegally dealing firearms to prohibited persons, you shouldn't be in fear of them. Like I've said before, hate on the politicians that are being elected and appointed. I know some of them don't even support some of the NFA regulations but politicians made the rules.

And they have enlisted to enforce those rules, at gunpoint.

I'm sure a lot of these people are well-intentioned and idealistic, but the fact is, they work for an unconstitutional agency - nay, make that ANTI-constitutional agency - that, aside from fighting against "gang members", also seeks regularly to harass and entrap harmless gun owners with their idiotic rules. And occasionally, they murder people (e.g., Sammy Weaver, who was shot in the back) in pursuing their anti-liberty mission. How can any gun owner support them?

[Guest jimdigriz]

I doubt many here have a problem with the agents themselves, but rather the ATF leadership's rather illustrious history...

Why not? Without their ninja-costumed armed goons, the ATF would not be able to implement the anti-liberty dictates of the Congress and of the ATF leadership.

[Guest Caveman]

Guys, the government tracks absolutely everything. I'm sure they know what color panties I am wearing right now. And I prefer to use armadillo helmets to block government mind control, tin foil doesnt hold up well.

[Guest canynracer]

Guys, the government tracks absolutely everything. I'm sure they know what color panties I am wearing right now. And I prefer to use armadillo helmets to block government mind control, tin foil doesnt hold up well.

Dude....you wear panties???

not that there is anything wrong with that....

Back to the OP...

I say, who cares, they can only track where I got the gun from...after that, they have no idea what happens to said gun.

been like this forever...not sure why folks are getting all upset about it now...LOL

Edited November 9, 2009 by canynracer

[Guest jimdigriz]

Dude....you wear panties???

not that there is anything wrong with that....

Back to the OP...

I say, who cares, they can only track where I got the gun from...after that, they have no idea what happens to said gun.

been like this forever...not sure why folks are getting all upset about it now...LOL

The point is not the gun, but the gun owner. They know that you are a gun owner, which could make you a target in the event of a general confiscation, which I admit is unlikely during normal times. But during an "emergency", all bets are off.

As far as it being like this "forever", length of time does not hallow such abuses.

[Guest canynracer]

nope......they know that I purchased a gun from a store...they have no idea if I still have said gun, they have no idea where it is...or if I gave it as a gift...they dont even know if I am a gun owner based on my permit status...they know that I applied for and successfully aquired a permit to carry a gun, if I so choose, or if I own one still...

to compare this to "Registration" like CA or NY is funny

and as far as length of time...sorry but it IS relevant...talk to the Brady folks, and the anti's...obviously they overwhelmed the majority (including NRA and others) to get background checks passed into law...

I would even venture to say that SOME folks on this board agree with the background checks...

[Guest jimdigriz]

nope......they know that I purchased a gun from a store...they have no idea if I still have said gun, they have no idea where it is...or if I gave it as a gift...they dont even know if I am a gun owner based on my permit status...they know that I applied for and successfully aquired a permit to carry a gun, if I so choose, or if I own one still...

So it gives them no useful information if they decided to confiscate firearms?

Right.

[Guest jackdm3]

I don't want to explain myself when they try to confiscate my sold guns, I tell them I don't have them, and they interrogate me and say, "It's your ass if you don't show us proof that you sold them."

[strickj]

So it gives them no useful information if they decided to confiscate firearms?

Right.

They can have my panties when they pry them.... NM

[redfsr]

And they have enlisted to enforce those rules, at gunpoint.

I'm sure a lot of these people are well-intentioned and idealistic, but the fact is, they work for an unconstitutional agency - nay, make that ANTI-constitutional agency - that, aside from fighting against "gang members", also seeks regularly to harass and entrap harmless gun owners with their idiotic rules. And occasionally, they murder people (e.g., Sammy Weaver, who was shot in the back) in pursuing their anti-liberty mission. How can any gun owner support them?

An FBI agent shot and killed Weaver in the back. This happened after a US Marshal had been killed. Again, get your facts straight.

Edited November 10, 2009 by redfsr

[redfsr]

So it gives them no useful information if they decided to confiscate firearms?

Right.

There will be no confiscation. Not in this lifetime anyway. It would be the beginning of another civil war for sure if they tried. Sure, other countries have done it but America is not like "other countries." Hopefully even the morons in DC know that. The can't even organize a good BBQ much less a mass confiscation. Stop being so paranoid. This whole tracing system only applies to crime guns and is a tool for law enforcement.

[Guest jimdigriz]

There will be no confiscation. Not in this lifetime anyway. It would be the beginning of another civil war for sure if they tried. Sure, other countries have done it but America is not like "other countries." Hopefully even the morons in DC know that. The can't even organize a good BBQ much less a mass confiscation. Stop being so paranoid. This whole tracing system only applies to crime guns and is a tool for law enforcement.

I hope you're right, but it amazes me how complacent gun owners are when draconian gun control measures are openly favored by a large segment of the party in power. (And when we have just lived through a ten year "assault weapons ban"). You call me paranoid - as if no one was even discussing or urging these things. Yes, it's all in my fevered imagination...

[Guest canynracer]

The Assault Weapons ban did not make it illegal to OWN, and they did not come confiscate the weapons...

....

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. Possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms was outlawed as well, but the law did not ban the possession or sale of pre-existing "assault weapons" or previously factory standard magazines which had been legally redefined as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices". This provision for "pre-ban" firearms created a higher price point in the market for such items, which lasted until the ban's sunset

++++++++++++

To think that an all out confiscation of firearms is possible amazes me....do you have any idea of how coordinated that would have to be? It would have to happen all at once, one effort that took place at the same time across the country...they dont have the manpower, its impossible...that is of course with the ASSUMPTION that ALL of the officers/military/crazy bastards doing the confiscation would actually DO it, and not stand down.

Nobody here is saying that gun control is smart, and nobody here likes it in any form, but to take it to the level of an all out confiscation is just paranoid.

Even if they forced gun registration nationally, that would just prove to them how insane it would be to attempt to disarm 5 million+ gun owners...(and that is only the ones they KNOW about...)

[Guest Caveman]

Did I say panties......I meant boxers

[Guest canynracer]

Did I say panties......I meant boxers

Nope...you said panties...clear as day...you said P-A-N-T-I-E-S

Guys, the government tracks absolutely everything. I'm sure they know what color panties I am wearing right now. And I prefer to use armadillo helmets to block government mind control, tin foil doesnt hold up well.

see there?? You said you were WEARING PANTIES...

Guys, the government tracks absolutely everything. I'm sure they know what color panties I am wearing right now. And I prefer to use armadillo helmets to block government mind control, tin foil doesnt hold up well.

Yep, plain as day

[Guest jimdigriz]

The Assault Weapons ban did not make it illegal to OWN, and they did not come confiscate the weapons...

Thanks, but the lengthy Wikipedia citation was not necessary. Advocates of gun control have long said that they would accomplish complete disarmament bit by bit. The Assault Weapons Ban was a pretty big step, though thankfully rolled back (for now).

To think that an all out confiscation of firearms is possible amazes me....do you have any idea of how coordinated that would have to be?

Quite coordinated indeed. It could never be 100% successful, but I'm sure they would be ecstatic with even a 50% success rate. (These are the people who constantly say during gun "buy-backs", "If we can get even one gun off the street, it will have been a success). They would be greatly helped by the fact that many people would dutifully turn over their arms when so ordered. And don't imagine that the police and military wouldn't obey confiscation orders. They'll do what they're told; that's what they do. The National Guardsmen certainly did during Katrina.

It would have to happen all at once...

Why do you assume it would happen all at once? If these people follow their pattern, they will pick off small segments of the gun owning community each time. First they'll outlaw the 50 BMGs, and few will object, because most of us don't have them and see little need for them. Then they'll proceed to the AK and other evil black rifles...and most citizens will say, "Well, AKs are used in so many crimes, and by terrorists and communists the world over...Civilians don't need that kind of firepower anyway." And so on.

Jim

[Guest Caveman]

Nope...you said panties...clear as day...you said P-A-N-T-I-E-S

see there?? You said you were WEARING PANTIES...

Yep, plain as day

I guess I'm busted

[Tim Nunan]

Guys (redfsr) is exactly right with his comments, its only used for recovered crime guns, which most have been stolen or sold a dozen times since the original owner. Its nothing to worry about.

<!--StartFragment -->"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." Purportedly said by Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

[Guest canynracer]

Thanks, but the lengthy Wikipedia citation was not necessary. Advocates of gun control have long said that they would accomplish complete disarmament bit by bit. The Assault Weapons Ban was a pretty big step, though thankfully rolled back (for now).

you keep saying this, yet have nothing to show for it...the did not DISARM, they banned new ones...if you had one, you kept it. (not saying its right, in fact, it SUCKS...but lets compare apples to apples here) you are discussing confiscation.

Quite coordinated indeed. It could never be 100% successful, but I'm sure they would be ecstatic with even a 50% success rate. (These are the people who constantly say during gun "buy-backs", "If we can get even one gun off the street, it will have been a success). They would be greatly helped by the fact that many people would dutifully turn over their arms when so ordered.

then you should be talking to those people that give them up...

And don't imagine that the police and military wouldn't obey confiscation orders. They'll do what they're told; that's what they do. The National Guardsmen certainly did during Katrina.

I am pretty sure they LEARNED from Katrina...and SINCE Katrina, there have been laws passed specifically designed for disasters about taking guns.

and also, dont assume they will all do what they are told, there are entire organizations of military/law enforcement specifically against it. There are a lot that will follow orders, but there are also a lot that will NOT follow, or GIVE the orders.

Why do you assume it would happen all at once? If these people follow their pattern, they will pick off small segments of the gun owning community each time. First they'll outlaw the 50 BMGs, and few will object, because most of us don't have them and see little need for them. Then they'll proceed to the AK and other evil black rifles...and most citizens will say, "Well, AKs are used in so many crimes, and by terrorists and communists the world over...Civilians don't need that kind of firepower anyway." And so on.

again...you are combining a ban and an all out confiscation...

a confiscation WOULD have to happen all at once...they CERTAINLY are not going to get the exposure and let gun owners join to fight it...they would have to go in one swoop and hope for the best.

If you knew they were coming, you would organize, or hide...think about CONFISCATION...not banning...

If you are worried about people turning in their guns willingly, then we need to reach THOSE folks and encourage the opposite... "Those that do not hang together will certainly hang seperate"

Edited November 11, 2009 by canynracer