Canada bans AR15's, 1500 other firearms

I doubt it. I got this feeling people are getting away with it like... yeah... it's missing. Left it somewhere. It's gone now. Dunno. Oh he got it? Yeah. Not happy with what he did with it. Why didn't you stop that? Ah well.

As far to my knowledge it's not possible for an individual to own a newly made fully automatic firearm. Only the ones made in 1986 and before are legal. A line has been drawn. Might as well draw a new one.

 

You are wasting time. *and are 100% right* but its a hopeless discussion when the other party wants to cherry pick stats under limited criteria.

Here's a stat, those making up silly arguments are 44x more likely to know the truth and are ignoring it than the rare one that actually didnt know the truth and has a light bulb go off when they realize that they were quoting garbage stats.

 

A new line.... like the ones around the block at the gun stores in california last month?

 

The united state supreme court has ruled it is unconstitutional for individuals to be required to store their firearms in a manner that renders them useless for immediate self defense.

Meaning the one who is claiming to be the victim of a crime is not to be believed, correct?

How would law enforcement even know where to begin looking, when the majority of all firearms in the united states are not even registered to anyone?

Will the findings of the ATF suffice?

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download

In the cited point of time, the latest year for which data is available, the ATF was asked by the state of California to trace some forty one thousand five hundred and twenty seven firearms that were found in the possession of criminal individuals within the state.

Of that amount, the ATF determined, through running the serial numbers on the firearms, that nearly half of the total amount, some forty two percent, were originally sold within the state of California itself.

The state of California requires the registration of all firearms held by private individuals without exception. No firearm can be purchased without a background check, and no firearm can be sold without a background check, not even by private individuals. All firearm purchases, regardless of commercial or a private nature, are subject to permits to purchase, and permits to own. All firearms must be stored in a secure manner, and are subject to reporting requirements if they are lost of stolen.

Despite all of these requirements and countless others, nearly half of the firearms found in possession of criminal individuals, were acquired within the state of California itself. The second highest amount, a mere five percent, were traced back to the state of Arizona, where there are no such requirements on the private sale of firearms.

If these firearm-related restrictions truly worked as their supporters claim, the number of illegally acquired firearms in the state of California would not even exceed one percent of the total number. It would not be physically possible for the amount to reach forty two percent of the total number.

Meaningless and irrelevant. Nuclear weapons are not arms, nor can be compared to such. It is nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense, presented by those who realize they cannot otherwise defend their position on the basis of facts.

Ultimately for what meaningful, legitimate purpose?

Repeating firearms existed during the time of the founding fathers, and even predated the founding of the united states. The puckle gun was patented fourteen years before George Washington was even born. They were very aware of the existence of firearms capable of being discharged numerous times before reloading was necessary.

The united states is not any other country. Therefore it cannot be compared to such.

 

People didn't see a problem in a creating a line in 1986.

 

Does this mean that he made some sort of executive order? It doesn't mention anything about a BILL which has gone through the Senate.

 

As I understand, that was for all cases. If a firearm is not in use,... there as such initiatives as having "safe storage" gun laws for those occasions.

Jail is full of people who aren't believed when they claimed they were framed, evidence planted etc.

That problem can be solved.

Yes, end up in the hands of criminals. Doesn't say if they were stolen, sold or given away to people who weren't allowed to have them.

Yes... quickly ignore the full auto weapons. That line was drawn in the 1986 or something.

To prevent as much as possible that civilians aid knowingly or unknowingly terrorists and killers. Guns are designed to kill, remember.

Yeah. They could picture the technology of today. Sure, sure. lol

It's the country with a massive amount of mass shootings, and LOADS of people having a hard line principle problem with it... that sticks out the most. And eventually that constitution will make the US a backward country like how the Taliban is running the show.

 

what you doubt has no bearing on reality. people are legally held accountable.

this is incoherent

can't draw a new one. you would need an amendment to do so. The court has already ruled that you can't ban an entire class of firearm.

 

The ignorance in this topic is mind blowing. There are multiple calibers available in the AR15 platform that are more then suitable for deer hunting.

 

Can we just quit this retarded argument. Many people use AR15 as an umbrella term to cover all AR style weapons. Let’s quit the nitpicking.

 

And at one point in history, people did not see a problem with slavery. But such is not the case anymore.

 

The united state supreme court did not allow for any exceptions in their ruling, under which individuals could be legally compelled to keep their firearms stored in an inaccessible manner.

How many of them are claiming to be the victims of crime?

Then go about explaining precisely how such can be accomplished. And do keep in mind even the nation of Canada could do nothing to ensure previously owned firearms were registered, and simply chose to instead ignore their existence.

Again:

The state of California requires the registration of all firearms held by private individuals without exception. No firearm can be purchased without a background check, and no firearm can be sold without a background check, not even by private individuals. All firearm purchases, regardless of commercial or a private nature, are subject to permits to purchase, and permits to own. All firearms must be stored in a secure manner, and are subject to reporting requirements if they are lost of stolen.

Despite all of these requirements and countless others, nearly half of the firearms found in possession of criminal individuals, were acquired within the state of California itself.

Exactly which part of the above portion of the statement is not being understood?

Because they are not relevant to the discussion of firearms that actually are in common use right now, such as the firearms the nation of Canada is seeking to prohibit.

Thus the position on the part of yourself is that private citizens cannot actually be trusted, and are indeed looked at from the perspective that everyone who legally owns a firearms is in fact engaged in criminal activity.

Has anyone claimed otherwise?

Again, meaningless and irrelevant.

Victimizing the law abiding in an effort to combat criminally minded individuals is hardly an acceptable alternative to live under.

What will be proposed next on the part of yourself and others? No individual being allowed to freely travel from one location to another without express written government permission, demonstrating that their reason to travel is legitimate? Should the fourth amendment be done away with so law enforcement can search wherever, whenever, in the name of trying to find criminals, all without probable cause?

 

And I doubt that. I doubt there is any investigation done if the gun was indeed stolen.

deal with it.

Citizens are not able to buy a new fully auto since 1986. You can say that's not banning an entire class. But in 50 year's from now... it's like handeling an antique. You might as well start considering it's a ban. That line got drawn. Might as well make a new one for semi auto.

 

So there is indeed no problem with drawing a new line, after that line that got drawn in 1986.

 

So what. I can put up sources that people are busy with new legislation about gun storage if you will.

Point remains that the argument stands that somebody claiming to be a victim does not mean they could be lying and guilty of a crime. Things need to be investigated.

Let's say I bought a weapon at a store, and the shop registers I got that weapon that it no longer has it, but I do. Than I dunno how you think me simply ignoring this, would make that weapon digitally disappear. If I than trade it to my neighbor and he sells it to a terrorist. And they find that gun on him registered to my name.... than exactly how does that ignoring the existence work for me when the cops can prove it's still digitally registered to me? That should leed to deliberately neglecting the laws leading to the death of people. People simply need to own up and made responsible. It's not as if they are made to buy a weapon meant to kill people.

The part that says the weapons were "acquired". That leaves open if it was sold with or without the required registration so a background check could have been done. Any person is still able to break the law by selling a gun without that required registration. Those people need to be held accountable for their part of a murder.

And also... aha. stored in a secure manner. Well well. If a weapon is stolen, than they need to prove their secure manner has been comprised. Otherwise it's on them that they neglected this with a possible deadly cause.

I find it relevant that people were able to draw a line about what firearms are allowed to be in common use. There was a line drawn in 1986. I fail to see a problem in drawing a new line. That is very relevant. Also in regards to Canada. I see a bigger picture that guns sold in 1986,... that's a gun that will preform well in the next decades. But eventually... you end up with an antique that gramps bought when he was young.

Nope. They are looked at from the perspective that everyone who legally owns a firearms need to assure others that they are held accountable if they knowingly or unknowingly (by neglect) aid terrorists and other killers.

I mean. If some nazi isn't allowed to own any guns. And your neighbor just buys them, and give those guns to that nazi without telling the authorities who do them background checks,... and that nazi end up shooting up some synagogue.... than what's the problem again to hold that guy who aided a terrorist for his part in a racially motivated genocide? You do seem to have a problem with that.

Pff. Get over it. Background checks are already "victimizing" law abiding people as if they could be criminals. Such things are also done with people who want to work in a daycare center to make sure the daycare isn't employing pedophiles. Same thing if you want to drive. You're assumed you can't handle a car and need a license. How "preposterous", how "victimizing", how "fascist"!

Who knows. It worked like this for black people and was found constitutional for a very long time.

 

And yet fully-automatic firearms are still available to the public. Meaning they are not prohibited from ownership. Meaning that there is no entire class of firearms that is prohibited from legal ownership. Meaning the argument on the part of yourself for supporting a prohibition on semi-automatic firearms carries neither weight nor legitimacy.

 

There is indeed a problem with such an approach. Fully-automatic firearms were never subject to widespread ownership at any point in history. Semi-automatic firearms, however, are indeed subject to widespread ownership in the tens of not hundreds of millions, and are in common use for legal purposes.

The legal standards are completely different and cannot be used interchangeably. It is simply not legally possible to do such.

 

Such does not change the point of the matter. The united state supreme court has already ruled on the matter, and they ruled against mandatory firearm storage requirements.

The point remains that the position being argued on the part of yourself, is that an individual who is claiming to be a victim of crime is being regarded as if they were an accomplice in the commission of a crime. Blaming the legal owner of a firearm for the theft of their firearm and subsequent use in a crime, is no different than blaming the victim of a sexual assault for facilitation of rape.

Except for the fact that such is not the case.

There is no digital registering of firearms that occurs in the united states at the point of the purchase. Whatever registration occurs, occurs in the form of the background check form 4473, which physically stays with the dealer who made the sale. There is no centralized digital database that is easily searched, and the law of the united states prohibits such a database from ever being created.

In the hypothetical scenario presented on the part of yourself, you state the firearm was not given to the terrorist, but rather a neighbor. If law enforcement were to ever visit in such a scenario, you would be able to tell them the firearm went to the neighbor, whose information you would have as a result of their being your neighbor, and said neighbor would be looked at instead. Said neighbor could easily claim the firearm was stolen from them, but was simply not noticed because it had not been used or seen in quite some time due to it being stored out of the way. Law enforcement would have no way of proving otherwise, and the matter would die there.

The registration of firearms is not optional in the state of California. Rather it is mandatory, and performed before the legal owner can actually take ownership of the firearm. Therefore, the only way the reselling of firearms to known criminals could be occurring, would be if the legal owners simply did not care about following the law. Yet there are no accounts of widespread arrests of legal firearm owners in the state of California for knowingly selling firearms in an illegal manner.

Except for the fact that such is not the case in the united states, where the legal principal is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty by default.

Fully-automatic firearms were never subject to widespread ownership at any point in history. Semi-automatic firearms, however, are indeed subject to widespread ownership in the tens of not hundreds of millions, and are in common use for legal purposes.

The legal standards are completely different and cannot be used interchangeably. It is simply not legally possible to do such. Therefore it is not relevant to the discussion. Stay on topic and only on topic.

Why does the same standard not apply for all other constitutional rights?

What is being described on the part of yourself is known as firearms trafficking, committed by a straw purchasers who knowingly purchases firearms for the express purpose of providing them to individuals they know cannot legally possess firearms to begin with, which is already a crime.

Operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way, and employment at a daycare facility, are not constitutional rights. Firearms ownership is.

Cite the court case holding such.

 

You're not telling anything new.

Oh really? In that case you wouldn't object that the sale of semi's to civilians gets prohibited next year. In case you're like in you're early 20's... it would mean that your not yet born grandchild gets to hear, when it's 16 or something that you still got 2 semi's.... but you know... it's like 60 years old and it's only nice to look at, but the antique isn't that safe to use. I mean... you don't get to see a robbery these days with gimps showing up with a tommy gun.

 

Hence it's smart to say that people do not need to return it. They can keep what they bought. They just can not buy a new one if the old one goes broke. And so I fail to see what the volume of the sale has to do with drawing a new line.

 

again, what you doubt has no bearing on reality.

write coherently and I will.

refuted this already. Fully automatic weapons are not banned. The court has already ruled banning an entire class of firearm is unconstitutional, so no, there will not be a ban on semi auto firearms unless you can amend the constitution.

 

Except you sourced something that weapons in California need to be stored somewhere.
So this doesn't really fly.

Yeah well. So what. People are investigated probably daily in the US if they are not committing fraud. There it nothing wrong with that. I don't see a connection with rape. I see a connection with any general object that is ensured, claimed to be stolen, and gets investigated if did happen or not in order to rule out insurance fraud or something. And I don't such a fraud as something "just like" a little boy being raped by a priest.

Also.. this is claiming that the government may not investigate firearms trafficking. And I doubt that.

I fail to see a problem in created a rather simple spreadsheet in who owns what gun.
Even cars have serial numbers. Nothing new.

Right... and also in your previous reply you're calling this firearms trafficking, and it being illegal.
That's not really a coherent reply. And the authorities must be far more strict on this.

And there lies a problem. People are getting away with breaking the law and so (potentially are) arming terrorist and gangs as a result. I dunno how people get this idea that this should continue as if this is a rather ok way to make a living or earning some extra's like this is a "honest" job.

Authorities can look if fraud or firearm trafficking happens without the need to first found somebody guilty, as far as I know.

The topic is still firearms, and getting a ban on them. And a mild way of doing that is to extent the ban on sale of new weapons. It happened in the US before for fully automatic. It's legal as far as anybody knows. Hence there is no problem in extending this to other firearms.

What matters is only if it's unconstitutional.

and previously you complained that

You mean... firearms is a constitutional right for most. People who are in jail or fail a background check....

Oh come on. They had to make the 13th amendment to outlaw slavery. That 2nd, and older amendment, was used by militias to roam the lands searching the houses of slaves and beat the crap out of slaves if they found weapons. That's how small groups of white people were able to control larger groups of black people.

 

The district of columbia attempted such an argument in the Heller case, arguing that become some individuals legally possessed handguns within the district, the second amendment was not being violated by a total prohibition on the purchase of new handguns by other individuals. The argument was ultimately rejected outright, with the united state supreme court holding that it does not work that way.

The first matter is the logistics that would be needed pertaining to the matter of enforcement.

The second is the legal standard of being in common use. Firearms such as the AR-15 are subject to such widespread ownership, there is absolutely no ground that could be used to argue they are not in common use for legal purposes.

 

The only thing being told is that the position on the part of yourself is factually incorrect.

It would indeed be objected to, on the basis that there is no legitimate reason for such.

There are a great many firearms in circulation far older than such, and are still functional and quite safe to use. The earliest AR-15 rifles on the private market are well over fifty years old, and are just as functional as those made today.

Irrelevant.

 

The individual states have a very long and established history of violating federal law whenever they feel like it. Such as the numerous states that have declared substances such as marijuana being legal within their borders, when it is still subject to an absolute prohibition at the federal level. Then there are the various cities and states declaring that they will obstruct justice to shield illegal aliens from detection by federal authorities.

Thus an open admission on the part of yourself to having no clue as to what is being talked about on the part of yourself. Everything presented is nothing more than mere speculation with no actual basis of support.

Factually incorrect. No such claim was made. It was yourself claiming the one who reports being a victim of crime should be treated as a suspect rather than a victim.

The first problem is the simple fact that such would be illegal to implement. The second problem is that by the time such a spreadsheet was completed it would be prohibitively expensive, and already outdated and thus useless.

Did the nation of Canada learn absolutely nothing from its failed registry of rifles and shotguns?

Law enforcement is not authorized to be "more strict" on particular matter than they already are. They cannot legally arrest someone for something that is not a crime.

Then it is being openly admitted on the part of yourself that firearm-related restrictions do not work. If even the felony-level offenses involved with trafficking firearms to prohibited individuals, especially licensed and registered firearms that can easily be traced back to the last known legal owner, are insufficient to deter such crimes from being committed, then there is simple no standard under which deterrence will be achievable. Therefore there is no legitimate reason to attempt a different approach.

Under what legal standard would law enforcement be able to justify treating the victim of a reported crime as a suspect in the commission of said crime? Point it out.

What is not known on the part of yourself is the burden law enforcement is under in the united states. They are expected to close cases as quickly as possible due to finite resources. They cannot afford to spend months or years investigating a single case to get to the bottom of the matter. If an easy out is believed possible, they will take it. Homicides will be written off as suicides simply so they do not have to investigate the matter. If someone claims their firearm has been stolen, law enforcement will not give it a second thought and simply take the report down.

Except for the fact that it is not.

Except for the fact that such actually cannot be done. The restrictions on fully-automatic firearms exist solely for the purpose of revenue generation via taxation. That is the reason the two hundred dollar transfer fee exists, and that is the only thing legally justifying the restrictions being applied to fully-automatic firearms. If the fee was done away with and the ATF could no longer collect that two hundred dollars, the legal basis of the restrictions would fall apart as a direct result.

If a proposal would never pass constitutional muster with regard to it affecting one constitutional right, the same standard would have to apply for all constitutional rights. The restrictions on the second amendment would never pass constitutional muster if they were applied to the first amendment.

There is a significant difference between investigating firearms trafficking, and treating crime victims as if they were accessories to the crime.

Such individuals have been made subject to due process through a trial, after having been accused and subsequently convicted of a crime. Such a standard does not apply with regard to others who have done nothing wrong.

Then cite the legal case that is being claimed to exist.

Then prove such to be the case. Show that such did actually occur as is being claimed on the part of yourself. Otherwise recant the statement.