So, Dianne Feinstien is currently trying to introduce a bill, that will require registration of all firearms and Photo ID's and fingerprinting for all gunowners. Dianna Feinstien's goal, in her words, is to "disarm all americans". And she plans to make this law ex post facto. How does everyone feel about this?

Do you think this will pass?
Do you think it should pass?

Just two notes. 1) Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional, and 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation

At 12/31/12 06:25 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Do you think this will pass?

Not a chance.

Do you think it should pass?

No, but a weaker no than above.

Just two notes. 1) Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional,

Not too sure about this blanket statement. While it is true that all criminal laws and penalty based laws cannot be ex post facto, I don't think the ex post facto prohibitions applies to all regulations.

Even then, she can merely make it so all guns have to be registered and set a future date for penalties, and voila, no more ex post facto.

and 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation

Like how they took away cars, and ownership of lands, and so on.

have a gun control thread Take it there.

At 12/31/12 07:19 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Will it pass? Maybe, and that's the problem.
Should it? Hell no. This is going to lead to a lot of dead government employees.

Will it pass? Hell no. All the republicans would be against it and even alot of democrats would be against it. Its also unconstitutional.

At 12/31/12 07:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Like how they took away cars, and ownership of lands, and so on.

No, I mean gun registration always leads to confiscation

As for ex post facto

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Black and white.

Not that it matters much. The government breaks the constitution almost daily anyway.

At 12/31/12 07:39 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Will it pass? Hell no. All the republicans would be against it and even alot of democrats would be against it. Its also unconstitutional.

Democrats wouldn't be against it. Their fucking King is trying similar shit now.

And yes, it is unconstitutional....but so are all the wars we're in, the Patriot Act, and so is Obamacare, and so are most taxes...constitutionality doesn't matter.

As much as Republicans would love the AWB to be renewed (it would virtually guarantee a GOP victory in 2016) no, there is absolutely no way it would be renewed. If it is, I'll PM tom asking him to delete my account.

At 12/31/12 08:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Democrats wouldn't be against it. Their fucking King is trying similar shit now.

And yes, it is unconstitutional....but so are all the wars we're in, the Patriot Act, and so is Obamacare, and so are most taxes...constitutionality doesn't matter.

OK first off were in the constitution does its say "Congress will not declare war on any one nor will the nation go to war with anyone." In fact the Constitution clearly goes into this and gives Congress the power to declare war. While the president has power over are armed forces.

The same is with what you call "Obamacare". Were in the Constitution does it say there shall be no universal health care? In fact the supreme court all ready looked into this and they found they did not have the power to over ride it because they could not find any where specifically in the Constitution that it went against it. Just because you don't like something does not mean it is unconstitutional. For some thing to be unconstitutional it has to actual go against the Constitution. While the thing I was talking about is mentioned in the Constitution. Its in the second amendment.

Now onto that comment that all Democrats are against the second amendment. That comment can only came from someone that watches to much fox news and has been completely brain washed. There are many Democrat's that are for the second amendment. I being one of them.

Finally the "Patriot Act" could definitely be argued to be unconstitutional. As a side note to all you crazy red necks, if you are truly afraid of losing your guns then use the second amendment as your shield instead of stocking up more ammo.

At 12/31/12 08:00 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/31/12 07:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Like how they took away cars, and ownership of lands, and so on.

No, I mean gun registration always leads to confiscation

As for ex post facto

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Black and white.

Not that it matters much. The government breaks the constitution almost daily anyway.

ex post facto laws means that congress passes a law which criminalizes something that was legal before and punishes people for doing that activity when it was legal. That would be say banning incest and making the punishment a fine of a million dollars then getting anyone who committed incest when it was legal and fining them. When Feinstein says means that she's going to get people to gradually lose their firearms and is mostly talking about something completely different.

The Feds can ban all the guns they like, there will still be shootings and violence like Sandy, Clackamas, VT and Columbine.

Not looking good

some ppl will turn them in but i dont think alot will

its basically an illegal repeal of the 2nd amendment

there is a method to disarm the US population but it requires changing the consitution. If they're so gung ho and think it would be a great idea and everybody is all for gun rights infringement then why dont they just redact the bill of rights

there is no gun control- only infringement upon the bill of rights

At 12/31/12 11:11 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

OK first off were in the constitution does its say "Congress will not declare war on any one nor will the nation go to war with anyone." In fact the Constitution clearly goes into this and gives Congress the power to declare war. While the president has power over are armed forces.

It pretty fucking clearly states that war must be declared by Congress. There has no been a declared war since Korea.

The same is with what you call "Obamacare". Were in the Constitution does it say there shall be no universal health care? In fact the supreme court all ready looked into this and they found they did not have the power to over ride it because they could not find any where specifically in the Constitution that it went against it. Just because you don't like something does not mean it is unconstitutional. For some thing to be unconstitutional it has to actual go against the Constitution. While the thing I was talking about is mentioned in the Constitution. Its in the second amendment.

The supreme court is wrong. The Constitution sats no one can be forced into buying goods or services, by the government. And that's exaclty what's happening with Obamacare. Buy insurance, or be punished. That's illegal.

Now onto that comment that all Democrats are against the second amendment. That comment can only came from someone that watches to much fox news and has been completely brain washed. There are many Democrat's that are for the second amendment. I being one of them.

Hmm..Obama wants to ban "assault rifles" and Dianne Feinstien wants to ban all guns. Also, I have never seen or even heard of a pro-gun Democrat.

Finally the "Patriot Act" could definitely be argued to be unconstitutional. As a side note to all you crazy red necks, if you are truly afraid of losing your guns then use the second amendment as your shield instead of stocking up more ammo.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. And Obama has extended and expanded it. He's a piece of shit and I'd spit on him if I could.

At 1/1/13 12:29 AM, Kellz5460 wrote: Not looking good

some ppl will turn them in but i dont think alot will

its basically an illegal repeal of the 2nd amendment

there is a method to disarm the US population but it requires changing the consitution. If they're so gung ho and think it would be a great idea and everybody is all for gun rights infringement then why dont they just redact the bill of rights

there is no gun control- only infringement upon the bill of rights

The people this is meant to affect, gun owners, will not play this game. I'd bet my life that not a single NRA member, will give up their gun.

At 1/1/13 12:14 AM, Warforger wrote:

:gradually lose their firearms and is mostly talking about something completely different.

Well, SHE used the words Ex Post Facto...so maybe that cunt needs to learn what it means.

At 1/1/13 02:19 AM, LemonCrush wrote: There has no been a declared war since Korea.

Also, I have never seen or even heard of a pro-gun Democrat.

The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. And Obama has extended and expanded it. He's a piece of shit and I'd spit on him if I could.

For the first one all I can say is bull shit. The fact that you don't know any Democrats that are for the second amendment only indicates that you watch to much fox news and that you isolate your self from democrats and other people who don't agree with every single thing that you believe in. Finally if you hate the Patriot act then you must also hate Bull for he was the one that had Congress pass it in the first place. I always find it funny how when a Democrat is President then you Republicans pretend to be for small government but when a Republican is President then you clearly want big government and to control every one. This includes the Republicans overwhelming support of the Patriot Act back then when Bush was President.

If fact (contrary to what they claim) there are only two examples of the Republicans wanting small government. One the right to bare arms (which I am for) and two the deregulation of Big companies and corporations. Other then that it is clear Republican want BIG government. Just a different form of big government. So don't give me that crap that Obama is a tyrant after what Bush did and the fact that you republicans have been all for the Patriot Act in the first place.

At 1/1/13 12:32 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: For the first one all I can say is bull shit. The fact that you don't know any Democrats that are for the second amendment only indicates that you watch to much fox news and that you isolate your self from democrats and other people who don't agree with every single thing that you believe in. Finally if you hate the Patriot act then you must also hate Bull for he was the one that had Congress pass it in the first place. I always find it funny how when a Democrat is President then you Republicans pretend to be for small government but when a Republican is President then you clearly want big government and to control every one. This includes the Republicans overwhelming support of the Patriot Act back then when Bush was President.

No it isn't bullshit. Congress has not issued a declaration of war since Korea.

And I don't watch Fox News. And I'm not a republican, so....you're dumb. Sorry to end the fun or you discriminatory ignorance.

If fact (contrary to what they claim) there are only two examples of the Republicans wanting small government. One the right to bare arms (which I am for) and two the deregulation of Big companies and corporations. Other then that it is clear Republican want BIG government. Just a different form of big government. So don't give me that crap that Obama is a tyrant after what Bush did and the fact that you republicans have been all for the Patriot Act in the first place.

Obama has taken all the shit Bush has done, and made it 100 times worse.

At 1/1/13 04:26 PM, LemonCrush wrote: No it isn't bullshit. Congress has not issued a declaration of war since Korea.

That's not true. The Korean War was authorized by the Security Council resolutions. Congress only funded the war. The last war that was officially declared by Congress was on Bulgaria on June 6th, 1942.

At 1/1/13 04:30 PM, Feoric wrote:

That's not true. The Korean War was authorized by the Security Council resolutions. Congress only funded the war. The last war that was officially declared by Congress was on Bulgaria on June 6th, 1942.

Even moreso proving my point.

At 1/1/13 04:26 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Obama has taken all the shit Bush has done, and made it 100 times worse.

Your certainly not a Democrat so if your truly not a Republican then you must be one of the independent groups.

Now in what way is Obama worse then Bush? Bush caused the world to hate us and greatly hurt relations with countries all over the world. Even are Allies. Obama has improved relations with the whole world. Bush got us into this recession. Obama hasn't ended the recession but the economy is improving and he has given us millions of jobs. It took Bush a week to react to hurricane Katrina. While Obama reacted to hurricane Sandy immediately. George Bush got us into two wars. Obama got us out of one of them and is in the process of getting us out of the other. Bush could not get Osama Bin Laden. Obama was.

Its based on these things that I say Obama is a million times better President then Bush was. So tell me in what way have deluded your self into thinking that Bush was a better President.

At 12/31/12 07:38 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: have a gun control thread Take it there.

you say that like 20 times a week dont you?

At 1/1/13 06:08 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Now in what way is Obama worse then Bush? Bush caused the world to hate us and greatly hurt relations with countries all over the world. Even are Allies. Obama has improved relations with the whole world. Bush got us into this recession. Obama hasn't ended the recession but the economy is improving and he has given us millions of jobs. It took Bush a week to react to hurricane Katrina. While Obama reacted to hurricane Sandy immediately. George Bush got us into two wars. Obama got us out of one of them and is in the process of getting us out of the other. Bush could not get Osama Bin Laden. Obama was.

Its based on these things that I say Obama is a million times better President then Bush was. So tell me in what way have deluded your self into thinking that Bush was a better President.

Obama is worse because he has expanded and built upon everything bad that Bush did. Bush caused the world to hate us? How has Obama helped? Unilateral invasions, assassination and murder of civilians? Here's some news you may not know. The world still hates us. They are well aware Bush is out of office. They hate us because Obama has continued in Bush's footsteps. Or did you not notice the Taliban and their allies still killing American soldiers. Or have you not noticed that the actual important potentially dangerous nations like Iran, China, N. Korea, etc. still hate us.

Bush may or may not have gotten us into the recession (I disagree, as the foundations for this recession was laid by progressives in the early 20th century..Bush just happened to be ther when it hit the fan)...but what has Obama done differently? Obama has continued the same spending and corporate welfare that caused this mess. The economy is not improving, and all of the jobs he's "created" were products of band-aid solution bailouts to companies that will fail anyways. He's killed more jobs than he saved. Doesn't matter if he created 25 million jobs...if he destroyed 27 million. See what I'm saying?

Obama did not immediately respond to Sandy. People were without power, food and water, for WEEKS after. Yet I didn't see any celebs on TV saying he didn't care about black people.

GWB got us into two wars. Obama has not only kept them going and expanded them, but started some new ones too. Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and a few others. Yet this murderer somehow recieved the Nobel Peace Prize. Fantastic. And he didn't end a goddamn thing. There are still troops in Iraq, and he has actually increased troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And Obama MURDERED Osama Bin Laden. For re-election points. Bush knew where Bin Laden was. We have some of the greatest intel in the world. And here's the real difference...Bush, saw the risk with such a task (unilaterally invading a sovereign nation and murdering someone...with troops lives on the line) and realized the risk did not equal the "reward". If it failed, shit would get really bad, obviously. Obama on the other hand, so he could get bragging rights, decided it would be appropriate not only put our armed personel at risk, but to MURDER someone. For him, the ultimate goal was bragging rights. He had no regard for the consequences of failure, only what benefits he could reap from the success.

I never said Bush was better. He's just as bad as Obama.

At 1/1/13 11:02 PM, tyler2513 wrote: I really doubt this will actually have a chance at passing, which is a good thing because personally I think America definitely needs stricter gun laws after the mass shootings we've been seeing but this is definitely not the way to do it.

What kind of laws?

It's clear that tight laws do not stop things from existing. Look at crystal meth. HEAVY HEAVY laws....and the shit is everywhere,and can be had easily if you want it enough. Murder is pretty fucking illegal. Hefty penalties too. And people do it anyway.

Same goes with guns. Laws do not stop criminals. Killers, drug dealers, theives, etc. don't give 2 shits about what's illegal or not. A black weapons market would be no different. Taking into consideration the fact that criminals will always obtain guns no matter how tight laws are, I prefer that as many people as possible are armed so they can protect themselves.

At 1/1/13 11:56 PM, N1HangMan-4Life wrote: If you want to know the truth behind the disarmerment of the american pepole, then go to www.Infowars.com, all I'm going to say is gun conrol does not do a lick of good for anyone exept the govornment.

While that is true...I stay away from Alex Jones and infowars...he's fucked.

At 12/31/12 08:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/31/12 07:39 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: Will it pass? Hell no. All the republicans would be against it and even alot of democrats would be against it. Its also unconstitutional.

Democrats wouldn't be against it. Their fucking King is trying similar shit now.

umm...I'm a registered democrat and I've never voted/supported Obama nor is he my "fucking King" so please save the rash generalizing.

Sounds like just another dumb, retarded, liberal bitch to me.

At 12/31/12 08:00 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 12/31/12 07:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Like how they took away cars, and ownership of lands, and so on.

No, I mean gun registration always leads to confiscation

;;;
First I would like to point out that Canada recently struck down automatic registration of firearms ...Long Guns (rifles & shotguns) only . You still have to register your hand guns.

We had manditory registration in effect for 10 or so years & the Government did not confiscate long guns ,except if used in a crime.

Secondly not everyone who owned long guns before registration actually did so ! They no this & while they granted amnesty again & again so you could register without being charged or having guns seized, it still didn't work. People kept their guns & with the registry gone there I believe out of any possible trouble. But if they want to buy additional guns they will have to go through the process to obtain them.

You still have to take a course & pass background checks to buy long guns & ammunition
aka getting a license.

You have to take additional courses/background checks for handguns. Also handguns have had to be registered in Canada since the 1930's

That is all I wanted to touch on

So at least in this case .... registration did not lead to confiscation.

At 1/2/13 10:40 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

So at least in this case .... registration did not lead to confiscation.

Maybe so....but it's fucking Canada.

At 1/2/13 10:40 AM, morefngdbs wrote: So at least in this case .... registration did not lead to confiscation.

Furthermore, as I can see, the Canadian government is not so quick to tyrannical actions.

The US government is frequently controlling, tyrannical and violent. And when nations like that go down this road, it leads to bad, bad shit.

You guys have n reason to need guns to protect yourselves from your government, as it seems to be fairly tame. Germans in the 1930s needed guns. Russians in the USSR needed guns. The Chinese citizenry during the Cultural Revolution, needed guns. We need guns.

At 1/2/13 02:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/2/13 10:40 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

So at least in this case .... registration did not lead to confiscation.

Maybe so....but it's fucking Canada.

;;;
Yes, so what has that to do with anything ?

We did have a periood in the last 10- 12 years where they restricted automatic guns & you had to turn those in & or prove they were unfirable.

They also made large magazines illegal.

BUt in comparison tho the USA ...we've got around 38 million people spread out across a pretty large chunk of realestate !
Although the majority of people live within 100 miles of the USA border with Canada . I live a bit further away from the nearest border than that ! (about 300 miles if I drive to Yarmouth & take a boat to Maine & around 300 miles to drive to Calais Maine)

At 12/31/12 06:25 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

... 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation

Canada HAD gun registration...did not lead to confiscation. All it did was show how ineffective and expensive gun registration is.

That's why they got rid of it.