It's just registration, they said.....no one will ever take your guns, they said.....

The problem - as with many of our problems these days - lies with the decay/change of the the entire concept of freedom amongst the populace. The average person's views of the role of the individual vs society and government are shifting and being challenged.

I'm honest in that I really don't give a crap if this stops a few crimes or saves just one life. If we have freedom, crimes are possible. If people are free, they have the ability to do bad things. The kind of steps requires to truly prevent the next marathon bombing or aurora are not compatible with individual liberty as I see it. But society is increasingly unwilling to accept the risk and responsibility that comes bundled with real freedom, they cry out for somebody to shield them from all that, and they will sell their souls to get the new freedom, which is mostly just the freedom from consequences and to be self indulgent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean M

I guess I missed it........what's the problem? California banned certain firearms. Now they are going to get the banned guns off the streets. ATF has a compliance section dedicated to tracking down and seizing illegal items under the NFA and GCA.

This is nothing new. Just new in California.

I am seriously curious as to the problem. Dude buys Glock. 3 years later is convicted of forcible rape at knifepoint. Told to surrender any firearms. Doesn't do it. CDoJ does nothing because of a lack of resources. They are hoping to get resources, and once they do, will be able to go and take said Glock from a convicted rapist/felon illegally in possessions of a firearm.

How is this a problem? I mean, seriously. Let's look beyond the tin foil hat paranoid conspiracy shit for once, and explain to me what is wrong with law enforcement enforcing the existing gun laws?

---

In your scenario, he's already a criminal in possession. Why do they need yet ANOTHER law? Why do you think it's 'tin foil hat paranoid conspiracy shit'?

You may wish to look up the Roberti-Roos law that Cali passed and the subsequent confiscations.

Right on, right on!

Well said LnL!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOKNLOD

To the other side, being able to go after these guns just proves that registration works and can keep a miniscule, insignificant number of illegal guns off the streets.

---

Fixed, because we know the Latin Kings, Aryan Nation, et alii prefer to register their weapons at the earliest convenience. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOKNLOD

The problem - as with many of our problems these days - lies with the decay/change of the the entire concept of freedom amongst the populace. The average person's views of the role of the individual vs society and government are shifting and being challenged.

I'm honest in that I really don't give a crap if this stops a few crimes or saves just one life. If we have freedom, crimes are possible. If people are free, they have the ability to do bad things. The kind of steps requires to truly prevent the next marathon bombing or aurora are not compatible with individual liberty as I see it. But society is increasingly unwilling to accept the risk and responsibility that comes bundled with real freedom, they cry out for somebody to shield them from all that, and they will sell their souls to get the new freedom, which is mostly just the freedom from consequences and to be self indulgent.

---

Soft Despotism

Quote:

---

'Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people. Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.
<snip>
"Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

---

It's not tinfoil hat bullshit.

CA has thousands of registered assault weapons.
A bill was introduced (AB 174), but failed that would have deleted all grandfather clauses on guns already owned.

If that bill were to have passed, what do you think the CA DOJ's next steps would be with this big ol' list of people who now have illegal guns?

I'm not convinced.

A dude who buys a gun legally, and later becomes a felon has forfeited his right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean M

A dude who buys a gun legally, and later becomes a felon has forfeited his right to keep and bear arms. Period.

---

I think the concern here is the dude who buys a gun legally, and later becomes a felon overnight because the government changes the law and retroactively makes that legal purchase illegal.

Giving LE a tool they can use to confiscate a gun owned by a serial rapist is all well and good on the surface. But like any police power it needs to be balanced against the possibility of abuse... not just abuse by the police themselves but more importantly abuse by legislators who engage in mission creep. Today they're registering guns, tomorrow they're cross-referencing it with a database of sex offenders, but next year maybe they'll use it to finish off the goal of universal confiscation.

Or think about it another way: confiscation without a registry is a very daunting task and far less tenable both politically and practically. So by stopping attempts to form a registry we put up a significant strategic "choke point" in the enemy's goal toward spearing the Second Amendment through the heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mnealtx

In your scenario, he's already a criminal in possession. Why do they need yet ANOTHER law? Why do you think it's 'tin foil hat paranoid conspiracy shit'?

You may wish to look up the Roberti-Roos law that Cali passed and the subsequent confiscations.

---

If you read the article, this bill authorizes the funds to enforce the existing law. So the scenario offered is directly relevant to the fact they know they have these guns in illegal possession, but lacked the resources to enforce. The bill was passed to get the resources to enforce. No where does it say find the legally owned guns, register them, and take them away.

I can see the concern brought up by TLG, but that is not what happened here.

Perhaps I need to just take a break from gun owners and the gun owning community, because taking a fact, and turning it into a fear mongering projection of " oh no, what if they do XYZ next? That is where all of this is heading! It must be, look at what the Nazi's did!" has grown tiresome for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean M

If you read the article, this bill authorizes the funds to enforce the existing law. So the scenario offered is directly relevant to the fact they know they have these guns in illegal possession, but lacked the resources to enforce. The bill was passed to get the resources to enforce. No where does it say find the legally owned guns, register them, and take them away.

I can see the concern brought up by TLG, but that is not what happened here.

Perhaps I need to just take a break from gun owners and the gun owning community, because taking a fact, and turning it into a fear mongering projection of " oh no, what if they do XYZ next? That is where all of this is heading! It must be, look at what the Nazi's did!" has grown tiresome for me.

---

<<deleted by ToddG ... you can disagree with the SMEs and you can debate the SMEs but you cannot be disrespectful to the SMEs>>

Beyond that, I can't even fathom how to address all the misunderstandings in your post. A quick rehash on some of the context added previously by other members as to what has already happened in the past may help.