Apparently, Registration DOES Lead to Confiscation

Primus said:

First, I appreciate the sincere thought out response.

Second, we are in agreement that prison makes violent people more violent and the entire system needs to be fixed.

But if we are in agreement on these points then how does that square with violent guys getting released? Can you address the question of whether you believe guys are suddenly not violent after x amount of days? And finally if your willing to admit that they probably still are violent even after x amount of day, how does that square with the initial concept (non violent enough to be held means guns).

Click to expand...

Honestly I have no problem with violent felons being barred gun ownership if they are released. This is a concession, because I realize that right now violent felons are routinely released from prison when they shouldn't. In a perfect world, those felons who are released would not deserve to have their fundamental human rights taken from them, and I think the right to bear arms is such a right.

What I am always and forever against is everyone going through prior restraint hoops like "background checks" to see if someone is a felon before they buy or carry a gun.

77zach said:

Honestly I have no problem with violent felons being barred gun ownership if they are released. This is a concession, because I realize that right now violent felons are routinely released from prison when they shouldn't. In a perfect world, those felons who are released would not deserve to have their fundamental human rights taken from them, and I think the right to bear arms is such a right.

What I am always and forever against is everyone going through prior restraint hoops like "background checks" to see if someone is a felon before they buy or carry a gun.

Click to expand...

Well there ya have it. You and myself are in 100% agreement on first paragraph and some stuff in second paragraph. I appreciate the honesty.

Primus, never once did I say I believe that everyone released from prison was instantly non violent. What I said was that if you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody. This was a neutral statement in that it does not convey my feelings about the prison system one way or another, only my opinion on prisoners.

There is no good reason for barring any free man from owning a gun. After all, the law only stops those who wish to abide it. The people you shouldn't be worried about. The criminals will just source their weapon from somewhere other than an FFL.

Primus said:

I have a sincere question about this.

If the thought is "if your too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody" does that mean you or anyone truly believe that a rapist, murderer, violent criminal magically becomes non violent if they spend an arbitrary number of days locked in a cage with other violent males who still continue to violently beat and rape each other on a daily basis and then are released back to society?

Click to expand...

Why is the gun of such importance, why not disbar violent criminals from possessing a knife, a car, a baseball bat, a ax, a metal pipe? The answer should be obvious and has nothing to do with the a fore mentioned criminals.

Primus said:

This is a prevalent thought and I do understand the basis of it. ....

Click to expand...

Again, why is the gun special? The fact that judges and prosecutors set these miscreants back on the streets, for you to again haul them in front of a judge, because they are miscreants, is not the guns fault. Nor does they not having a gun mean that they will not commit a violent crime again.

Primus said:

I mention this because I recently had an older gang member on a call the other day. ....

Click to expand...

Missouri does not have the crime of battery. There is misdemeanor assault and felony assault in RSMo. The "requirements" for the two are very different and the facts of the incident are key. Being convicted of "assault" does not necessarily mean that you should be disbarred from possessing a gun.

Primus said:

So again...

Click to expand...

Will being disbarred from possessing a gun make them non-violent? I suspect that violent folks will likely be violent whether or not they have a gun.

"I say to those critics, again, if we can get one of these guns off the streets that could be used to commit a crime or injure a member of our community, it's a good thing," Mayor Byron Brown told WIVB during the summer.

Click to expand...

Any cop who claims to be "pro-2A" and then participates in this "program" reveals himself/herself to be anti-liberty and anti-citizen...and a liar.

TOTAL ALL AGENCIES: Number of "Aggravated Assaults" known (FBI Stats 2012)

Firearm: 143,119
Knife or cutting instrument: 123,701
Other weapon: 214,484
Hands, fists, feet, etc.: 176,241

Click to expand...

Why does the gun receive particularized focus? The answer should be obvious and has nothing to do with the a fore mentioned criminals.

Jack House said:

I have stated this before, but I guess it bears repeating.

You are, in my opinion, only a criminal if you are currently engaged, or preparing to engage, in criminal activity.

So I completely agree that the only people whom should be stripped of their second amendment right are those that are currently in state custody. Be it the crazies or the convicts.

Once you've been released you should have your full rights. If you are too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody.

Click to expand...

I disagree, but only because I wouldn't be against a "probation" period after being released. Something like 2-3 years where you're out of prison (and thus out of their custody) but still have to report to a probation officer and are loosely watched. The intent would simply be to show that you've reformed and are now a functioning member of society. Once the probation is over then you get all your rights back. Kind of like an in-house then out-of-house rehab program where you have to do both to get all of your rights back.

Aknazer said:

I disagree, but only because I wouldn't be against a "probation" period after being released. Something like 2-3 years where you're out of prison (and thus out of their custody) but still have to report to a probation officer and are loosely watched. The intent would simply be to show that you've reformed and are now a functioning member of society. Once the probation is over then you get all your rights back. Kind of like an in-house then out-of-house rehab program where you have to do both to get all of your rights back.

Click to expand...

How about those rare criminals that decline early release so as to have their full time served and who "owe nothing to the state/society" at the end of their sentence? Should they be punished further?

OC for ME said:

Why is the gun of such importance, why not disbar violent criminals from possessing a knife, a car, a baseball bat, a ax, a metal pipe? The answer should be obvious and has nothing to do with the a fore mentioned criminals.

Again, why is the gun special? The fact that judges and prosecutors set these miscreants back on the streets, for you to again haul them in front of a judge, because they are miscreants, is not the guns fault. Nor does they not having a gun mean that they will not commit a violent crime again.

Missouri does not have the crime of battery. There is misdemeanor assault and felony assault in RSMo. The "requirements" for the two are very different and the facts of the incident are key. Being convicted of "assault" does not necessarily mean that you should be disbarred from possessing a gun.

Will being disbarred from possessing a gun make them non-violent? I suspect that violent folks will likely be violent whether or not they have a gun.

Any cop who claims to be "pro-2A" and then participates in this "program" reveals himself/herself to be anti-liberty and anti-citizen...and a liar.

Why does the gun receive particularized focus? The answer should be obvious and has nothing to do with the a fore mentioned criminals.

Click to expand...

The reason the gun is special is the sane reason you don't open carry an axe, bat, hammer, knife (I know some do but still use gun as PRIMARY), metal pipe.

And I agree this answer should be obvious.

Also be careful with the "guns aren't special" deal because if they aren't special then why the big deal about taking them away? To me they are special so I'm willing to fight for them.

I also agree that disbarring a violent person from purchasing a gun will not make them less dangerous.

Mull this over... I agree that if bad guys really want guns they will find guns (usually stolen ones from good guys). But the fact that they really need to look and make contacts makes it that much harder for them to do it. As opposed to walking into Wal mart paying cash for gun and brick of ammo then simply turning gun on store for a refund. Also I can tell you from chasing said gentlemen that they really don't want to get caught with said gun. So they take extra steps that hinders their operation. Such as community guns or carrying very deep concealed (like in underwear) to avoid detection or my favorite passing it of to the youngest kid present because hell get a slap on the wrist. That makes them that much LESS effective.

Still doesn't address my core issue. Most of us agree that a person released from prison isn't magically less violent because they spent x amount of days in prison. So how does that jive with not violent enough to be held then should have guns back?

Jack House said:

Primus, never once did I say I believe that everyone released from prison was instantly non violent. What I said was that if you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody. This was a neutral statement in that it does not convey my feelings about the prison system one way or another, only my opinion on prisoners.

There is no good reason for barring any free man from owning a gun. After all, the law only stops those who wish to abide it. The people you shouldn't be worried about. The criminals will just source their weapon from somewhere other than an FFL.

Click to expand...

I agreed with you jack and I apologize if it seemed I was misconstruing anything you said. But can you reconcile the fact we know guys are still dangerous when they are releases after x amount of days?

Think of it this way. The measure for release is NOT dangerousness. Its merely time served. So a guy could theoretically notify the prison right out that yes he's violent and yes he will go back to hurting people but the prison cany do squat about it. After that last day the cage opens and animal comes back out.

That is my issue with the "too dangerous for gun means too dangerous to be out". Simply put being out DOES NOT equal being non dangerous. By any measure.

Primus said:

<snip>

Still doesn't address my core issue. Most of us agree that a person released from prison isn't magically less violent because they spent x amount of days in prison. So how does that jive with not violent enough to be held then should have guns back?

Click to expand...

How others feel is irrelevant. Its a natural right. The gov't cannot take it away from a free person.

Primus said:

The reason the gun is special is the sane reason you don't open carry an axe, bat, hammer, knife (I know some do but still use gun as PRIMARY), metal pipe. ...

Click to expand...

The statistics available at FBI.gov seem to indicate that guns (non-antique, sorry reviewed the law and they are not "guns") are not as special as some would like them to be where aggravated assaults are concerned. Homicide by gun is easier, thus the higher death rates vs. knife or cutting instrument, other weapon(s), hands, fists, feet, etc.

Where crime is concerned the tool used to aid in the criminal act should not be a consideration in my view, though they are in many states. I am not "more deader" because a knife was used vs. a gun. I am not more "aggravated assaulted" because a baseball bat was used vs. a gun. The anti-gun crowd made guns more badder because guns are not to be in the hands of the citizenry.

In Missouri we have armed criminal action, implement type is not defined, just a add on charge because a crook used a dangerous implement. But, guns are special because there is no prohibition on owning a dangerous implement except a gun.

If Buffalo NY has its way they will enforce the "long unused" law and collect guns to save just one life. Liberty or the constitution be danged.

Those self proclaimed pro-2A cops who participate in this gun confiscation scheme are decidedly not supporters of the 2A.

OC for ME said:

The statistics available at FBI.gov seem to indicate that guns (non-antique, sorry reviewed the law and they are not "guns") are not as special as some would like them to be where aggravated assaults are concerned. Homicide by gun is easier, thus the higher death rates vs. knife or cutting instrument, other weapon(s), hands, fists, feet, etc.

Where crime is concerned the tool used to aid in the criminal act should not be a consideration in my view, though they are in many states. I am not "more deader" because a knife was used vs. a gun. I am not more "aggravated assaulted" because a baseball bat was used vs. a gun. The anti-gun crowd made guns more badder because guns are not to be in the hands of the citizenry.

In Missouri we have armed criminal action, implement type is not defined, just a add on charge because a crook used a dangerous implement. But, guns are special because there is no prohibition on owning a dangerous implement except a gun.

If Buffalo NY has its way they will enforce the "long unused" law and collect guns to save just one life. Liberty or the constitution be danged.

Those self proclaimed pro-2A cops who participate in this gun confiscation scheme are decidedly not supporters of the 2A.

Click to expand...

Well that was a deflection.

So your going to start carrying a metal pipe instead of your gun? I mean all weapons are equal right? Why do I doubt this...

OC for ME said:

The statistics available at FBI.gov seem to indicate that guns (non-antique, sorry reviewed the law and they are not "guns") are not as special as some would like them to be where aggravated assaults are concerned. Homicide by gun is easier, thus the higher death rates vs. knife or cutting instrument, other weapon(s), hands, fists, feet, etc.

Where crime is concerned the tool used to aid in the criminal act should not be a consideration in my view, though they are in many states. I am not "more deader" because a knife was used vs. a gun. I am not more "aggravated assaulted" because a baseball bat was used vs. a gun. The anti-gun crowd made guns more badder because guns are not to be in the hands of the citizenry.

In Missouri we have armed criminal action, implement type is not defined, just a add on charge because a crook used a dangerous implement. But, guns are special because there is no prohibition on owning a dangerous implement except a gun.

If Buffalo NY has its way they will enforce the "long unused" law and collect guns to save just one life. Liberty or the constitution be danged.

Those self proclaimed pro-2A cops who participate in this gun confiscation scheme are decidedly not supporters of the 2A.

Click to expand...

You are right, of course. However, firearms have more utility in self protection and as defense against all powerful government-as-God-walking-on-earth; a "progressive" and neocon ideal. Any restriction on guns is therefore progress in their view. All "gun laws" are of a piece. Whether a cosmetic restriction or an ownership restriction. Many conservatives have not figured this out.

I do not lose sleep over some felons losing their rights simply because they shouldn't be free in the first place. They should be jailed, subject to labor, or the death penalty.

I like Zach's avatar ....

Aknazer said:

I disagree, but only because I wouldn't be against a "probation" period after being released. Something like 2-3 years where you're out of prison (and thus out of their custody) but still have to report to a probation officer and are loosely watched. The intent would simply be to show that you've reformed and are now a functioning member of society. Once the probation is over then you get all your rights back. Kind of like an in-house then out-of-house rehab program where you have to do both to get all of your rights back.

Click to expand...

If you're on probation, then you haven't been released from custody.

Primus said:

I agreed with you jack and I apologize if it seemed I was misconstruing anything you said. But can you reconcile the fact we know guys are still dangerous when they are releases after x amount of days?

Think of it this way. The measure for release is NOT dangerousness. Its merely time served. So a guy could theoretically notify the prison right out that yes he's violent and yes he will go back to hurting people but the prison cany do squat about it. After that last day the cage opens and animal comes back out.

That is my issue with the "too dangerous for gun means too dangerous to be out". Simply put being out DOES NOT equal being non dangerous. By any measure.

Click to expand...

Once again, my statement is not negatively impacted by whether or not the prison system functions as it should. In fact, the statement has two clauses:

1. Anyone released from custody should be free to exercise their full human rights.

2. Anyone that is too dangerous to own a gun should not be released from custody.

It's really simple.

77zach said:

You are right, of course. However, firearms have more utility in self protection and as defense against all powerful government-as-God-walking-on-earth; a "progressive" and neocon ideal. Any restriction on guns is therefore progress in their view. All "gun laws" are of a piece. Whether a cosmetic restriction or an ownership restriction. Many conservatives have not figured this out.

I do not lose sleep over some felons losing their rights simply because they shouldn't be free in the first place. They should be jailed, subject to labor, or the death penalty.

Click to expand...

Forced labor camps are a great incentive for the government to create crimes out of thin air.

Perhaps they're not such a great idea after all, eh?

I registered my car and it contains all my guns ... so that's registering my guns too, right?

Zooom ! Off it goes.

Primus said:

Well that was a deflection. ...

Click to expand...

I addressed your post directly. You not agreeing with the data does not equal me deflecting your point. Guns are special because they are guns, whose possession by the citizenry is to be limited by the state, NY state in this instance.

The data is what it is, guns are not the scourge of society as anti-liberty citizens, some in LE, claim they are, merely another tool used by criminals. The lawful defensive use of any tool is not reported it seems. The effectiveness/efficiency of the tool should be irrelevant under the law. The manner of carry is not addressed in the FBI data.

Also, I did not state that all weapons are equal, you do. I provided data that shows that non-firearms, as well as hand/feet, do more harm than guns, by a wide margin. Thus, guns are special and all other tools are not special.

Cops who confiscate guns under this law are not pro-2a.

Do you have a cite to bolster your claim that a gun is the primary weapon?

OC for ME said:

I addressed your post directly. You not agreeing with the data does not equal me deflecting your point. Guns are special because they are guns, whose possession by the citizenry is to be limited by the state, NY state in this instance.

The data is what it is, guns are not the scourge of society as anti-liberty citizens, some in LE, claim they are, merely another tool used by criminals. The lawful defensive use of any tool is not reported it seems. The effectiveness/efficiency of the tool should be irrelevant under the law. The manner of carry is not addressed in the FBI data.

Also, I did not state that all weapons are equal, you do. I provided data that shows that non-firearms, as well as hand/feet, do more harm than guns, by a wide margin. Thus, guns are special and all other tools are not special.

Cops who confiscate guns under this law are not pro-2a.

Do you have a cite to bolster your claim that a gun is the primary weapon?

Click to expand...

There are many flaws with the data.

For example, this past summer we had shots fired calla several times a week. More often then not a few casings some holes in property (cars,houses) and nothing else. I'm pretty certain (open to being corrected) that none of that is reported to FBI or any other study. Yea I have responded to guys smashing windows in a car with a bat. But the ratio is at least 2 to 1 its bullets over bats and its pretty tough to stab a window out. My point is those numbers don't show the whole picture. Numbers usually don't. I know for a certainty your smart enough to know that.

In fact this topic came up with a co worker the other day. Discussing the impact of advancements in medicine in dropping the murder rate of cities.

Finally in regards to your request for cite in primary or secondary weapon, I wouk venture on a limb and say its common knowledge the ocd gun is primary to any other weapon such as knifes of BUG (hence the term back up gun, not back up to knife bit back up to other gun). The only time a pistol would be secondary is if you were carrying a rifle. A simple perusal of this very forum will back up that claim.

edit, double tap.