Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2009-02-01 08:36:32
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7019

Burwhale wrote:

Turq wrote:

When Australia gets off its nanny state/censorship kick, I'll have more respect for your viewpoint.  Until then, you seem more than a little too comfortable with big government.
Thats bullshit turq. Dont disrespect Drunkfaces veiw just because of censorship. Its totally irrelevant. We have strict gun laws over here, but you still have access to rifles, handguns, and shotguns if you qualify and do the right paperwork. Our levels of gun crime are actually alot less than yours so maybe you should look to other countries when forming your policy, and not be so arrogant to dismiss others opinions.

You say we lack freedom, but you really dont know what you are talking about, I have lived here 35 years and my freedom hasnt been compromised yet. Havent been shot yet either. In fact being shot/killed  due to poor gun control is probably one of the biggest attacks on personal fredom you can get.

As for the ammo reg, it warrants further investigation. Maybe concecssions can be made for club goers. If you arent doing anything wrong, you dont have anything to worry about.
Great firewall of Australia. That's what he's talking about.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-02-01 09:44:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

Burwhale wrote:

Turq wrote:

When Australia gets off its nanny state/censorship kick, I'll have more respect for your viewpoint.  Until then, you seem more than a little too comfortable with big government.
Thats bullshit turq. Dont disrespect Drunkfaces veiw just because of censorship. Its totally irrelevant. We have strict gun laws over here, but you still have access to rifles, handguns, and shotguns if you qualify and do the right paperwork. Our levels of gun crime are actually alot less than yours so maybe you should look to other countries when forming your policy, and not be so arrogant to dismiss others opinions.
It is relevant though.  Australians seem ok with more government.  You prefer security over freedom.  Don't get me wrong, some Americans are like that too.

I'm just saying, because of your tolerance for bigger government, it shows a difference in priorities.

Burwhale wrote:

You say we lack freedom, but you really dont know what you are talking about, I have lived here 35 years and my freedom hasnt been compromised yet. Havent been shot yet either. In fact being shot/killed  due to poor gun control is probably one of the biggest attacks on personal fredom you can get.
Crime is definitely a problem here.  You won't get any argument from me on that.  Censorship has much more longer term implications though.  You can generally avoid crime here by staying away from the ghettoes.  You can't avoid the government censoring your media and internet.

Burwhale wrote:

As for the ammo reg, it warrants further investigation. Maybe concecssions can be made for club goers. If you arent doing anything wrong, you dont have anything to worry about.
That last sentence was used to defend the Patriot Act.  Are you sure you want to use that logic?  It's a slippery slope.
2009-02-01 11:21:58
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

DrunkFace wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

No.  The government has no right to track or tag the guns or ammunition of law abiding citizens.
Why not? They track your car, your house, your income, your taxes, your job, your family, your pets are your guns and ammunition so much more important?

Stingray24 wrote:

What happens when the government decides to arrest me when I have broken no law?  Weapons owned by law-abiding citizens are a deterrent to keep government from steamrolling their rights.  If they know who has what and how much, it's that much easier for them to gain control against our will.
Ohhh I see your just a paranoid conspiracy nut.

Stingray24 wrote:

They don't want to track ammo that's been fired in the commission of a crime.  They simply want to track all ammunition. Period.
So??

Stingray24 wrote:

You honestly believe that when the government has the ability to track all ammo they'll stop there?
No, does it matter?

Stingray24 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

o btw I like this act..apologies to you gun lovers but I think America's lenience is ridiculous.
That's why you live in Europe and we live here.  Hands off our freedoms.
You throw the term freedom around as if it means something. You're living a delusion and fighting for fanciful inconsequential things.
1. Yes, guns and ammunition are more important.  They are the means we used to create this nation with its freedoms and they remain the means to maintain that freedom.
2. I'm a student of history, not a nut.  I don't want my nation to repeat the mistakes of others that gave away their freedoms.
3. That's the issue at hand, you were limiting it to bullets used to shoot someone.
4. You acknowledge they won't stop at ammo, which is precisely my point.  This is the beginning. If citizens allow this, removing firearms from the population will be much easier.
2009-02-01 11:40:10
xBlackPantherx
Grow up, or die
+142|6645|California
This is really the only thing I can say is bad about it, but is easily fixed:

Also, if someone steals your ammo and commits a crime, they will come to the one who has it registered.
That could be easily fixed with Reported Stealings and lack of evidence found towards the person its registered to.
2009-02-01 11:50:24
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6952

I agree with needing to register to buy a gun, but registering ammo seems pointless to the extreme.
2009-02-01 13:00:49
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7017|US

Dilbert_X wrote:

I guess the alternative would be for everyone to have a sealed 200 rnd tin, as the Swiss, after all you only have your guns in case of a tyrannical govt or invasion by the British right?

What would make sense would be gun registration and a sample fired bullet from every gun.
You have to register your car, why not your gun?
No.
No.
and No.

Americans have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes (DC v Heller), which includes a hell of a lot more than armed rebellion.

Creating a ballistics database would be extremely costly, would require gun registration, accurate theft reports, accurate private sales reports, and would STILL be easily defeatable.  Switch out a barrel, fire it when its extremely dirty, or deface it, and the ballistic record would be useless.  You also have to remember that one firearm can use various barrels and calibers.  A single AR-15 could fire a half dozen calibers through as many barrels as you can buy.(since the actual firearm, by law, is the lower reciever). 

We do NOT have to register our cars.  We can own them without any registration.  The restriction is we cannot drive unregistgered cars on public roads.
2009-02-02 01:29:26
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Stingray24 wrote:

Why?  The government needs to keep track of the criminals, not we law-abiding people.
The government also needs to keep track of dangerous things. Guns are dangerous things.

You wouldn't want things like nerve gas lying around unaccounted for. The same is true of guns, but to a much lesser degree.
2009-02-02 02:28:48
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

I see no problem with this and for those already having a lot of ammo lying around you can prolly get that registered, about time to get some control with both guns and ammo and storage of such ... every gun owner should be held accountable for their guns and ammo and safe keeping to prevent it from getting stolen and be sure to report it if it gets stolen as soon as possible.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 03:44:30
Zukabazuka
Member
+23|6988
Wouldn't it help to find the criminals? Yes I know they would use the ammo that has not been marked. But sooner or later that ammo is gonna run out unless they buy from another country or so.

Your country is leading in kills with guns, so it would do more good than bad.
2009-02-02 05:07:42
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker
Perhaps, but the killing is done by criminals.  These laws only affect the law-abiding citizens who follow them.  Criminals already ignore them.
2009-02-02 05:18:30
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

Stingray24 wrote:

Perhaps, but the killing is done by criminals.  These laws only affect the law-abiding citizens who follow them.  Criminals already ignore them.
For each responsible gun owner that now will lock up his guns and ammo the more difficult it will become for criminals to get their hands on it ... think that's the general idea behind the act ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 05:47:22
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

Turquoise wrote:

It is relevant though.  Australians seem ok with more government.  You prefer security over freedom.
Australians hate more government, they are generally just too lazy to do anything about it.
The political system is pretty well stitched up here, political argument doesn't really go much beyond raising or lowering taxes - everything else gets waved through without the public paying a lot of attention.

Raimius wrote:

Americans have the right to possess firearms for lawful purposes (DC v Heller), which includes a hell of a lot more than armed rebellion.
Thats not a reason for not having a registration system.

Creating a ballistics database would be extremely costly, would require gun registration, accurate theft reports, accurate private sales reports, and would STILL be easily defeatable.  Switch out a barrel, fire it when its extremely dirty, or deface it, and the ballistic record would be useless.  You also have to remember that one firearm can use various barrels and calibers.  A single AR-15 could fire a half dozen calibers through as many barrels as you can buy.(since the actual firearm, by law, is the lower reciever).
So license the barrel, as most countries do.
Registration, or registration coupled with a ballistic database might well discourage some crime, and discourage careless storage.

We do NOT have to register our cars.  We can own them without any registration.  The restriction is we cannot drive unregistgered cars on public roads.
Thats a pretty narrow difference, even so make it the same for guns - what you do on your property is up to you, if you're ever found in a public place with an unregistered gun you're toast.

I don't have an issue with guns being registered, traceable and stored securely.
If they weren't it would only take 1 in 1000 legal owners to flood the crims with legally bought weapons sold on - as seems to be the case in the US.
It makes far more sense than trying to control ammo.
Fuck Israel
2009-02-02 06:05:45
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

Varegg wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Perhaps, but the killing is done by criminals.  These laws only affect the law-abiding citizens who follow them.  Criminals already ignore them.
For each responsible gun owner that now will lock up his guns and ammo the more difficult it will become for criminals to get their hands on it ... think that's the general idea behind the act ...
Responsible gun owners already do so.  No, it is not the general idea behind this act.  If that was the case, gun safes would be the focus of this law.
2009-02-02 06:10:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
Responsible gun owners already do so.
Then we need to make sure irresponsible gun owners, who crims presumably get their guns from, either get the message or lose their guns.
Fuck Israel
2009-02-02 06:22:27
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

Stingray24 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Perhaps, but the killing is done by criminals.  These laws only affect the law-abiding citizens who follow them.  Criminals already ignore them.
For each responsible gun owner that now will lock up his guns and ammo the more difficult it will become for criminals to get their hands on it ... think that's the general idea behind the act ...
Responsible gun owners already do so.  No, it is not the general idea behind this act.  If that was the case, gun safes would be the focus of this law.
Well that was my first thought reading it ... better lock that up real good so it doesn't get in the wrong hands and with equally "stupid" citizens as the rest of the world i bet most doesn't lock it up ... but maybe now they will
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 06:38:37
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker
That's nice ... but totally beside the point of this new law.
2009-02-02 07:00:30
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

link in OP wrote:

They are coming for your guns. Now they will find the unregistered ones via registered ammo.
They are not coming for the guns of the responsible gun owners are they? And finding the unregistered ones can't be a bad thing can it?

link in OP wrote:

All tyrants use the registration records to confiscate guns from potential resistors.
Seems like the guy that wrote this shouldn't own a gun in the first place.


link in OP wrote:

Also, if someone steals your ammo and commits a crime, they will come to the one who has it registered.
So lock up your ammo then and be sure to report it stolen asap if it happens ...


link in OP wrote:

Many law-abiding people who have guns but do not have Driver’s license or government issued ID cannot buy ammunition
Wrong ... the act says: The purchaser's driver license number or other government issued identification card number


link in OP wrote:

By 2011, it will be a crime to have non­coded ammunition in your possession
Sounds good, by 2011 why would you need noncoded ammunition?


link in OP wrote:

When fines are collected, where does the money go? Yes, you are right!...To build a bigger empire.


link in OP wrote:

They are also taxing ammo at the rate of 5 cents for each round.
Wrong again, they are taxing it half a cent ... $0.005 pr round.


I hope this isn't your work Stingray tbh ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 07:10:40
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker
The first link is a bit over the top.  You still don't seem to grasp what this means to folks like me in the US.  Go ahead and teehee in Norway, Varegg.  Maybe you don't care about this, but I do.  In the links I've perused today it seems this is a big cash grab.  See below:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/blog.s … untability

To spell it out for you, the people who developed the tagging technology are pushing this legislation so it becomes a cash cow for them.  This is no safety initiative.
2009-02-02 07:22:22
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Stingray24 wrote:

The first link is a bit over the top.  You still don't seem to grasp what this means to folks like me in the US.  Go ahead and teehee in Norway, Varegg.  Maybe you don't care about this, but I do.  In the links I've perused today it seems this is a big cash grab.  See below:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/blog.s … untability

To spell it out for you, the people who developed the tagging technology are pushing this legislation so it becomes a cash cow for them.  This is no safety initiative.
How would you feel about legislation that forced gun owners to register their guns and obliged them to store their weapons securely in a locked gun cabinet?
2009-02-02 07:26:16
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

Stingray24 wrote:

The first link is a bit over the top.  You still don't seem to grasp what this means to folks like me in the US.  Go ahead and teehee in Norway, Varegg.  Maybe you don't care about this, but I do.  In the links I've perused today it seems this is a big cash grab.  See below:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/blog.s … untability

To spell it out for you, the people who developed the tagging technology are pushing this legislation so it becomes a cash cow for them.  This is no safety initiative.
Of course i teehee a tad because there is still no good arguments against this act is there?

Your 2nd amendment will not be infringed by this, you can still arm yourself to the teeth if you like but now you better make sure to keep track of all your guns and ammo because you will be held accountable if you don't ...

If you should ever have a lobbyist pushing for an act it should be this one!

So what is it i don't grasp Stingray? ... for a law abiding citizen like yourself what does this mean?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 07:28:27
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker
How would that be enforced without unnecessary intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens?  I currently own 2 unregistered guns.  Both purchased legally after the proper background check.  The record of that background check is held at the location of sale and then destroyed after a period of time.  The government has no need to know that I have them, nor how I store them (though I have mine secured along with their ammo).
2009-02-02 07:30:22
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7112|Nårvei

Stingray24 wrote:

How would that be enforced without unnecessary intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens?  I currently own 2 unregistered guns.  Both purchased legally after the proper background check.  The record of that background check is held at the location of sale and then destroyed after a period of time.  The government has no need to know that I have them, nor how I store them (though I have mine secured along with their ammo).
And how is coded ammo gonna change any of that other than making it easier for the police to track it down?

And would it be so bad that your gun was registered somewhere?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-02-02 07:37:21
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Stingray24 wrote:

How would that be enforced without unnecessary intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens?  I currently own 2 unregistered guns.  Both purchased legally after the proper background check.  The record of that background check is held at the location of sale and then destroyed after a period of time.  The government has no need to know that I have them, nor how I store them (though I have mine secured along with their ammo).
We do it over here.

When you register you get a visit from your local firearms officer, he checks everything is ok.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-02 07:38:04)

2009-02-02 08:00:27
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker

Varegg wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

The first link is a bit over the top.  You still don't seem to grasp what this means to folks like me in the US.  Go ahead and teehee in Norway, Varegg.  Maybe you don't care about this, but I do.  In the links I've perused today it seems this is a big cash grab.  See below:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/blog.s … untability

To spell it out for you, the people who developed the tagging technology are pushing this legislation so it becomes a cash cow for them.  This is no safety initiative.
Of course i teehee a tad because there is still no good arguments against this act is there?

Your 2nd amendment will not be infringed by this, you can still arm yourself to the teeth if you like but now you better make sure to keep track of all your guns and ammo because you will be held accountable if you don't ...

If you should ever have a lobbyist pushing for an act it should be this one!

So what is it i don't grasp Stingray? ... for a law abiding citizen like yourself what does this mean?
No good argument against this act?  Perhaps not from your perspective, as Norway already has tight constraints on guns, yes?  So of course you wouldn't care about ammo tracking because you're already ok with restrictions on the weapons themselves. 

1. Gun registration is not currently required.  Handgun purchases are checked through a state system, long guns via National Instant Check System (NICS).  However, this check is not maintained in a permanent database, the merchant is simply notified whether to allow or deny the sale.  If/When the government puts gun registration in place, they can find unregistered guns by ammo purchase records, instantly making a citizen a criminal simply for owning a weapon.  Bottom line: easier to remove 2nd amendment rights.

2. If I stock up on ammo I'll have the state police knocking on my door playing 20 questions about a legal purchase.  I'm not a felon, I don't deserve that.

3. With this in place, all the government has to do is jack up the tax through the stratosphere and no one can load their weapons.

4. Handloading ammo will be illegal.  Countless hunters and target sportsmen hand load their ammo for cost savings.  Removal of freedom. 

It's not that hard to understand.  There's simply a fundamental difference in thinking between how someone in Europe who has accepted government intrusion in this area and a US citizen who has never been tracked by his firearms or ammo unless they have a federal firearms license.

A good friend of mine put part of this in perspective quite nicely.  See below:

They are taking the secondary approach that Govt uses when they cant ban something. They regulate and tax the hell out of it until it becomes too much of a regulatory PITA or is too costly to continue. (under the guise of security... see Ben Franklin for his view on that)

In a way, they are attempting "the sudafed approach": lets make it so cumbersome and/or expensive that they cant buy what they need to do thier deed. Serializing and tracking these are going to be a huge, expensive proposition that will dramatically increase the cost of the ammo. In this case make that $1.50 50 round box of .22LR plinkers cost $15, or the box of .223 ammo cost what a box of .50BMG currently costs (read: not cost effective). You attack the supply, and the manufacturers go under; nobody can afford to shoot, nobody buys guns.
2009-02-02 08:20:32
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7017|US

Stingray24 wrote:

You attack the supply, and the manufacturers go under; nobody can afford to shoot, nobody buys guns.
DING!

This bill is economic warfare on hobby shooters. 
The technology really isn't more useful in solving crimes than current ballistics technology, but it's damn expensive for anyone who shoots frequently (i.e. people who do it as a hobby). 

A criminal probably wouldn't care if their ammo cost $100 per box of 50 bullets, because it doesn't take many to murder/assault/rob someone.  On the other hand, if I kept up my sport shooting rate, I'd go bankrupt in about 2 months...and that is the real intent of the informed people pushing this bill.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard