How is it that they believe they have the answer before they even know the question?

Because most politicians are ruthless opportunists who will use any situation, even the murder of random people, to promote their agenda.

Agreed.

Because most politicians are ruthless opportunists who will use any situation, even the murder of random people, to promote their agenda.

Because most politicians are ruthless opportunists who will use any situation, and will even murder random people, to promote their agenda.

FTFY

All murderous governments from history used gun control to first make the people defenceless before the slaughter.

http://api.ning.com/files/y-bv5rFg-3NzWb1GU7F9PuKRM6I-iHE8jEllJGF48jhh8wm3S6OBk4-JPGULaItEDnGK69S6ID5Dmp4Bl2enimWNjfgosTjN/GUNCONTROL.jpg?width=554&height=346

/r/badhistory

Source?

Seeing that both the Soviet and German count uses their death toll + killed for the total number its a large stretch.

There were plenty of murderous governments before guns.

Yes there were. And those murderous governments did not allow peasants to have swords either.

I think that was more due to cost vs not being allowed to own them. Peasants had access to plenty of weapons. Pitchforks, axes, bow and arrows, scythes.

You are wrong. In many if not most cultures of old, the lower classes were strictly forbidden from owning weapons. Pitchforks, axes, and scythes were tools. Bows and arrows, likewise, were tools for hunting, not war. As an example, think of all the weapons used in Asian martial arts that aren't swords and spears, these are all farming tools that were adapted for use as weapons by a peasant class who was forbidden to use weapons. The peasants were the ones mining the iron and smithing the blades, they certainly had access to the weapons, they made them. They were not allowed to own them under any circumstances however.

They also didn't own them because swords and armor were expensive. Only the elite could afford them.
Im not saying they weren't kept from owning them. Im saying thats not the ONLY reason they didn't have swords.

You're still wrong. Even if a peasant found a sword on the ground after a battle, the first nobleman or retainer who saw the peasant holding a weapon would take it away or worse.

Ok.

lol. You think a peasant could afford a sword? Really? Oh my god this subreddit is HILARIOUS with how little they know of history.

Go back to /r/conspiratard, the adults are having a conversation here.

Why don't you visit /r/askhistorians where this question has actually been answered. I also studied the time period as part of my undergrad requirements and this is specifically discussed. No offense but this subreddit does not know much in ways of history from primary/secondary sources.

You're talking out of your ass. You don't know my credentials, you're just a nerd trying to put down someone else's knowledge. You picked the wrong guy, I know what I am talking about and I don't argue with people that start sentences with "lol".

Shoot me your thesis on the subject then and you're welcome to read mine!

Yup. Nerd.

Glad you are so informed on the things you are talking about. It's one thing to talk out of your ass but it's another to be willingly misinformed.

There were plenty of murderous governments before guns.

"Guns don't kill people, governments kill people"

You do know that Hitler greatly loosened gun control laws in Germany, and that in fact following his assumption of power private gun ownership increased dramatically, right?

You do know that Hitler greatly loosened gun control laws in Germany

So German Jews had guns to defend themselves with???

The US government lacks the money and man power to "roundup" every gun in the country.

Here are some numbers.

According to americangunfacts.com there are approx 270,000,000 civilian owned guns.

If the government started to round them all up they would have to collect 739,726 a day, seven days a week for an entire year to get them all.

Or only 184,931 a day, seven days a week for 4 years. (An entire presidential term)

Secondly every single administration knows that the day they even try to take law abiding citizens guns by force, is the day an armed uprising will begin.

Im not some leftwing anti gun person, I own 3, (plus a stripped AR lower if you want to count that)

But the reality is they aren't going to come and grab them.
Regulate? Probably. But regulation and taking by force are VERY different situations.

Sorry, when I see the term "gun-grab" I take it as, taking law abiding citizens guns by force.

As for your argument of the registration... I disagree, simply because I see anti-gun legislation fail constantly.

A sitting congresswoman got shot. Nothing happened.

A class of children got killed. Nothing happened.

The gun industry has never had better sales since Obamas inauguration. And getting .22 ammo is still next to impossible (where I live at least) and for months last year I had to buy 9mm and .40 reloaded ammo because its so scarce.

In reality I think the gun industry, and NRA need people scared of a "gun-grab". So they will buy more guns, ammo, and NRA memberships.

Looks like ill be doing a little more diggin into the NRAs motives. You know, to be fair and unbiased.

Im not going to assume the NRAs motives. But I will throw this out. A couple months back Wayne LaPierre wrote an article in American Rifleman talking about a gun treaty the US was going to sign on to that would essentially outlaw certain guns in the US. And how the US was handing over control of its laws to the international community.

What he didn't say in the article is our Constitution will supersede all treaties in all situations. And that the supreme court had ruled on a situation like this years prior and upheld it.

Therefore had the US signed on to the treaty (we ultimately didn't) it wouldn't have mattered anyway. It would have changed NOTHING.

You could be right. I was under the assumption it was not signed.

Edit: Yep you're right it was signed September 2013. Thanks for updating me.

Now all they have to do is submit to UN authority (which they could do following a currency collapse... maybe not UN. Maybe IMF or one of those outfits). Sorry guys. UN Laws, not US. "It's the law." Give me the guns.

I think Santa Barbara has more than enough evidence to show it was staged if you bother to check it out.

If they pass AB-1014, you're screwed.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0CNqhXwCvE

Really? More than enough evidence? I've seen two points made so far. The lack of blood in the guy's car and the analysis of the storefront photo.

Both are moderately compelling but I would be really hesitant to say that more than enough evidence exists.

I'm interested in what evidence has you so convinced.

There's bound to be more since I last looked into it but here's what I've found from various sources..

The replacement glass was there before the police and ambulance arrived, if by some crazy coincidence they had it out back, they wouldn't have moved it through the blood etc before police got there.

There was a shell casing amongst the blood in the store that was being cleaned up by the store owners..

Not only should it have been outside where it was fired but it should have been collected as evidence.

It's illegal for the store owners to clean up the biohazard.

Multiple witnesses said there was 2 in the car.

The lack of blood in the car.

The staged crime scene where the damaged bike was moved into position alongside the car, it wasn't there the night it happened.

One of the 'injured' that was shot 5 times not only didn't receive treatment but was found to be an actor, as usual.

There's endless extremely suspicious tidbits as well which tends to be enough for most who know this stuff (terrible acting etc) but I'll leave it out for now.

I forgot about the bike and some of those other ones I hadn't heard. I will have to look into it further. Thanks.

Can't watch the video I'm at work. What's it say?

You can shoot all the niggers down in the hood you want. It will never make the news. The gun-grabbers will not appear. It is about class.

Unfortunately, people will overlook your point, which is correct, because of the racist language.

The point of the language is to draw attention to the post. I see that it did not work the way I planned...

You should probably edit that, this is reddit, freespeech is not allowed, if you like that sort of thing I'd recommend /pol/

It's not a matter a "free speech". People will simply write off the comment, regardless of it's factually correct, because of racist language. Furthermore, it reflects poorly on the community and allows people to generalize that the community is just a bunch a racists. Basically it's bait for disrupters.

Oh, you think being racist is a bad thing? Hmm... you should go watch more talmudvision.

People that judge others by the color of their skin or nationality are sad and ignorant people.

How is it that they believe they have the answer before they even know the question?

Because they are completely insane. They collectively believe they have and will continue to have our best interests at heart. So as they remove freedoms and continue the march towards anything but democracy or a republic, they do so with a clear conscience. These are the people who believe that they "should never let a crisis go to waste."

Literally any movement made by politicians regarding guns doesn't seem to be thought out. I live in the good old communist republic of New Jersey, where being a gun owner is painful. Besides having an assault weapon ban, we also have background check requirements on pistols. "its only one quick background check, stop whining, what are you a criminal with a record? Why is it such a big deal?" Well whenever i apply for a permit, i have to pay the fees and complete the proper paperwork. Then, i wait usually around four months for someone to finally get around to sending it out. Then, i have to hope that they remember to tell me to pick it up, otherwise i will have a permit that expires within the week because sometime was too lazy to pick up a phone. If it's that inefficient for such a small area, could you imagine how screwed up it would be at the national level? Think the NFA, except a thousands times worse.

Sorry for the lack of paragraphs, i wrote a lot more than originally planned.

New jersey sucks with guns. They have every little thing in there to make it as hard as possible.for a gun. And we have a republican governor. Probably the only state with a repub governor who hates guns

I'm a gun owner and I think that a universal background check wouldn't be helpful. People lie about their background to get into college, get a job, to get a driver's license. People probably do try to lie to get a gun. At least it would weed out those people.

Of course no background check will stop a criminal intent on getting a gun.

It seems to me that many of these shootings are by people who are taking or have recently stopped taking some kind of antidepressant. So many of those drugs have warnings that they cause violent thoughts and suicidal thoughts. We have a mental health crisis in this country.

But how do you address it? Saying "hey let's make a law that if you take Zoloft, you have to turn in your guns" would piss off the gun industry and the pharmaceutical industry in one go, and I don't see any politician wanting to take that on. Plus there are issues of doctor patient confidentiality and scaring people off from seeking help.

EDIT: crap I wrote above that I thought background checks wouldn't be helpful...I meant to say they would be helpful to weed out people that might lie about their application! As a gun owner I fully support background checks.

I edited my comment above...I meant to say I think background checks would be helpful to prevent fraud.

Gun Registration: Evil, or Just Stupid?

Politicians - Evil

Voters - Useful idiots

It has nothing to do with the welfare of the people--they could give two shits. It's about consolidation and maintenance of the elite power structure, and their wanting zero resistance to their plans for using our country for their ends.

[deleted]

Zionists. Not Jews.

Get the fuck outta here.

[deleted]

No way am I driving up the ad revenue for your bullshit propaganda. Go sell stupid somewhere else.

This is the only developed country where this sort of thing regularly happens. I don't believe anybody is saying ban guns outright, but we should at least rethink our policies...

[deleted]

PLEASE take a look http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/27uip9/hear_me_out/

In what sense is requiring universal background checks a gun grab?

In order to have a truly universal background check system, every firearm sold would have to have it's serial number registered to the purchaser, along with their contact info, in a federal database.

Eventually, the government will decide that it's subjects no longer need those pesky firearms, and will have no trouble rounding them up, because they already have your home address, phone number, work address, etc on file, right next to the make/model/serial number of every gun you ever purchased.

A universal background check is literally what it's called, a background check. It has absolutely nothing to do with a federal registry, why are you lying to people? What's your motive?

Slapping the title "UNIVERSAL" on the front will do nothing different, unless there is a national registry, which is what the gun grabbers ultimately want. How are you going to know who bought what, and where/when they bought it without keeping a "universal" record of purchases?

My motive is to keep my rights, and make sure we don't continue down the slippery slope of "compromise" gun control.

You're lying. It's possible to buy guns in NV without a background check. Universal means that will end. Nothing to do with a registry. You are a liar.

It's possible to buy guns in a direct person-to-person sale in most free states without a background check. That is a good thing, and Universal background checks will absolutely not end that practice, especially without a federal registry.

Why, you ask? Because if I own a gun that the government doesn't have a record of, and I want to sell it to a friend, how will the government know I went to an FFL and got a background check for my friend, even if it is "required by law"? They have no way of knowing.

Universal background checks are not a bad thing. Of course you have guns you want to sell. Everyone needs money

On the surface, no, they are not. But they open the door for so many things that can be used to take away the rights of the People, and that is a road we don't want to go down

I don't work for a gun company or prepping company like you assumed in another comment. And I don't have personal guns I want to sell either, that was a hypothetical. In fact, I am getting ready to buy more personal firearms. From an FFL dealer. Who will run a background check on EACH AND EVERY ONE.

I hope you have a fantastic day, and enjoy your blissful ignorance as to how today's government works.

Enjoy your lying.

Is information on where and when and where you love when you bout the gun not kept?

He is blatantly lying and probably has an agenda to sell guns or prepping equipment. He's lying about what universal background checks, a very simple concept mean and you seem to be helping his cause.

No, you were derailing. He's completely lying about what background checks on guns means, and you're trying to further muddy the waters.

Most states already have mandatory background checks, so making a redundant law would only mean expanding it's meaning.

But there is the fear of background checks being used to make a gun registry, which history shows is used for later confiscation.

There is also the constitutional perspective where the government would be the gate keepers who decide who gets a 2cd amendment right or not. And with all the victimless crimes today that means many have none. Like me. I got a felony pot charge as a teenager and no longer have a 2cd amendment right.

These are not fully my opinions. these are just the common arguments on the subject.

Could you explain how universal background checks is an attack on guns?

Most states already have mandatory background checks, so making a redundant law would only mean expanding it's meaning.

But there is the fear of background checks being used to make a gun registry, which history shows is used for later confiscation.

There is also the constitutional perspective where the government would be the gate keepers who decide who gets a 2cd amendment right or not. And with all the victimless crimes today that means many have none. Like me. I got a felony pot charge as a teenager and no longer have a 2cd amendment right.

These are not fully my opinions. these are just the common arguments on the subject.

All states. Mandatory NICS background checks are federal law already. The "Universal background checks" push is an attempt to get a fully comprehensive gun registry (illegal, but given the other leaks of everything else in the last year you know there is one). Currently a gift from father to son does not require a background check.

Most states already have mandatory background checks, so making a redundant law would only mean expanding it's meaning.

Most states... so really the only tangible change a universal background check would have is that the states that don't already have them, would have them?

But there is the fear of background checks being used to make a gun registry...

That fear is manufactured within peoples' minds and not written down in the background check laws, right? There are gun registries already, in some states, right? Which are separate from background checks?

In neither case is there a reality of "gun-grabbing", right?

I got a felony pot charge as a teenager and no longer have a 2cd amendment right.

Good. Felons shouldn't own guns. Neither should people with a history of violence toward humans or animals. Neither should people with a history of mental or emotional illness.

Why?

Guns are for protecting oneself, and, I guess, hunting.

Felons and people with a history of violence have already shown a pattern of behavior of causing harm to others, or in the case of violence against animals a clear indicator that they're near to causing harm to people, therefore their ability to retain the "self defense only" aspect of the gun is reasonably called into question.

Those with a history of mental or emotional illness have established a pattern of being unable to process situations rationally and therefore their ability to understand the difference between self-defense and shooting the shit out of anything, any time, is reasonably called into question.

I grew up hunting. I got my first deer at age 14. How does possession of pot once as a teenager make me violent, mentally or emotionally ill, or established a pattern of being unable to process situations rationally? Our last 3 presidents have admitted to doing drugs. Are they any of these things?...

This is reality http://api.ning.com/files/y-bv5rFg-3NzWb1GU7F9PuKRM6I-iHE8jEllJGF48jhh8wm3S6OBk4-JPGULaItEDnGK69S6ID5Dmp4Bl2enimWNjfgosTjN/GUNCONTROL.jpg?width=554&height=346

As a teenager, how did one instance of possession of pot get you a felony conviction? Come on. There's more to that story.

Possession of an ounce or more is a felony.

And conviction of a felony on the first arrest for an ounce or two is exceedingly rare.

Rarity doesn't make it a violent offense.

No, but it does seem that you're not telling the whole story.

I'm not telling any story. I know as much as you, and nonviolent felonies used to permanently deprive a person of their civil rights is an insane abuse of the justice system.

I lost all respect for you here.

I'm crushed as the only thing I have ever angled for is your respect.

It is the bullshit laws we have in place that waste time, money, and resources that turn capable, successful, responsible people into jail for non-malicious crimes that harm no one, and into felons.

Careful... home slice never told the whole story. You have to admit it is highly unusual for the courts to convict a teenager of a felony for his first arrest over possession of a few ounces of weed, right?

Its the issue that pro-guns rights groups dont wish to see our country go down the road that makes it much easier for future generations of politicians to confiscate guns.

I think you're missing the point, actually.

Nobody's going to confiscate guns. They might start passing laws that make it harder and harder to get guns and, through attrition over decades or generations, eventually nobody will have them.

Alternatively, they really don't give two fucks about the guns the people have because, really, what are our pea-shooters going to do against the equipment the US military brings to the table? Answer: Not a damn thing.

Do the background check laws currently on the books or proposed do that?

You shouldn't become a felon for a non violent, victim less crime. Since, pot is slowly becoming taxed and legal, this man was locked in a cage like an animal simply for selling a non taxable substance.

locked in a cage like an animal

He never said he was imprisoned. Just convicted.

for selling

He never said he was selling, just possession.

Besides, the topic that we've been dragged away from is... how are background checks "gun-grabs"?

To be a felon, you have to be convicted for a crime with a punishment of no less than a year in jail? I may be wrong, only taken one law class in my life. When you are in possession of more than an ounce of that good good, your possession charge includes an intent to distribute.

As to the background checks, we have a regulated firearm market in this country already, any additional checks is going to be record keeping. Another point to consider about background checks is that the Santa Barbara shooter had four handguns, which means he was referenced four times, once month for each purchase, you can only purchase one handgun a month in California

To be a felon, you have to be convicted for a crime with a punishment of no less than a year in jail?

Judges have a lot of leeway in sentencing. Convicted felons can and do get probation - no jail time.

There must be more to the person's story. It either wasn't his first conviction and all priors were misdemeanors, or he had a shitload of the stuff (kilos, not ounces), or he did something really, really stupid in the court to piss the judge off.

As to the background checks, we have a regulated firearm market in this country already....

None of which is relevant to the question of how background checks, even universal background checks, become "gun grabs" as the OP suggested.

The thought process is that with the record keeping they know who what and where to raid and confiscate. Obviously, if a gun grab is the MO, They wouldn't come right out with it. Feinstein wants additional background checks,and on record seeks to take mister and misses Americas firearms. Holder advocates additional background checks,and on record seeks to brainwash Americans opinions in firearms. This all obviously stems from distrust of our leaders rather than actual claims of gun grabs

As for the weed, I've seen people convicted of felony possession and intent, only do a month or two bid, followed by the rest of the sentence in probo. Still makes them felons, and therefore second class citizens doomed to unemployment, and lack of a second amendment right, because of a plant.

I advocate for thorough background checks (which obviously aren't happening now in many cases) but don't want to take anyone's firearms (who would pass the background checks).

I mean, you point out two politicians who want to grab guns. There are more, sure. There are a lot of politicians, conservative and liberal alike, who aren't interested in grabbing guns. And there is at least an equal number of politicians who want to protect your right to own a gun no matter what, dammit, because that's what they believe or they're in the NRA's pocket.

TL;DR: just because a couple politicians want to grab guns doesn't mean it will or even can happen.

Until confiscation is encoded into the law, it's not the law. That's my point. Background checks aren't gun grabs. They're just background checks.

On the weed thing, I'd really like to hear the rest of the story from the guy who started telling it... because he's obviously only told us part of it but he's trying to use it as proof of... something...

Honestly it's a difficult situation. Everyone, antigun and pro gun, want a clear cut solution to mass shootings. This is already a flawed thought process, because you can never create a utopia(obviously). What makes it even more flawed is that many believe a clear cut solution will come from legislation! Absolutely ridiculous, because legislation does not deter crime, it punishes it, the punishment is the the crime deterrent. Everyone in this country needs to take a moment and appreciate the value of safety. What really is safety? Who is dependent on your safety, and who is responsible for it?

children aren't prepared to take account of their own safety, obviously. By saying we can't afford armed responders on campus, we are putting a price on a child's life.

The only person responsible for your safety is yourself, this notion has been confirmed by our court system when they ruled that the police are not obligated to protect, only enforce laws.

In my opinion, the solution to mass shootings is going to have to come within. We need to accept that the pharmaceutical Industry has literally created a proliferation on premeditated suicides, and homicides followed by suicides, after resulting in mass casualties. Until the media quits pushing the urban legend status of these killers, we have to have constant vigilance, because these situations start and end in seconds. I personally wouldn't want to have laws further restricting my access to firearms. Real life example, one of these situations almost occurred in my neighborhood, and the nine millimeter would not have penetrated kevlar he was evading police for hours, and its lucky he didn't enter any homes End rant I suppose As for the weed, I guess my point was that it's not fair to fall to the lowest caste of American society because of weed :p

want a clear cut solution to mass shootings.

That's easy. Stop making people crazy.

No, that might sound hard but really, it's easy. Nobody has the stomach for it though. It starts by removing sociopaths from all positions of authority.

Heh, toward the end of your post you came close to that. It's not the drugs. Well, it is sort of the drugs. But more importantly we need to stop creating the need for those drugs in people.

I hear that, people think they can conquer their inner demons by the pop of a pill, and it is sad that lie has been sold to them. I really feel bad, I know how tough it can be.

There are already registries. There are already background checks. They seem to be making the background checks more consistent and more universally applied.

Yes, there could be a slippery slope. Deal with that problem if it actually becomes a problem instead of blocking something out of fear that something bad might happen someday.

Slippery slope is never a valid argument for or against anything. It's all supposition and fear.

Why waste so much when you can get better results by actuall enforcing the laws that already exist?

It's partly that, but it also seems to be partly that there may not be (effective) background check laws in some states.

I dont wish to see my country go towards the direction where civil disarmament is possible.

Then don't vote to rescind the 2nd amendment.

Or maybe, you know, it's harder to shoot other people if you don't have a gun?

Yeah it is harder. Then people make bombs or use their car as a weapon. They drop large stones off of overpasses or crash their boat into a tour boat full of people.

There are a million ways to cause mass casualties that don't involve guns.

There is one way for a people to be secure in their personal defense of life and property. One way for a people to ensure that their government doesn't run away with the bank, one way to ensure that the government stays loyal to the people.

Guns.

Have a great day.

If that's seriously your argument then that is terrible, the things you stated are rare to have mass casualties in countries where guns are very hard to get or completely illegal. Just because there are other ways to do it doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of one of the most deadly ways.

The 2nd amendment is the reason we shouldn't get rid of guns.

Do we rule ourselves or is there some imaginary entity called the government that is somehow smarter than people, supremely morale and ordained by god to have control over our lives?

Should we give up control of our right to personal defense? That is what this is about. Should we contract out our well being to the government so that we have to wait 30-45 minutes to be saved from a rapist because of some policy on response time at the police department?

From where I stand your argument seems to be "save me, I'm weak!" So while you're waiting for 45 minutes to be saved from a rapist, or being eaten by wolves on a hiking trail, I'll be just fine. Oh and if your government is being ran by psychopaths who want to round you up because of your religion race or creed. At least I'll die fighting instead of curling into the fetal position in the corner of my cell.

Have a great day.

Sure, but its hard to deny that many people are ready to start pushing their agenda the instant disaster strikes, trying to exploit it for their own ends.
Any gun regulation policy should be based on universally accepted statistics, not isolated tragedies, but statistics aren't as compelling.

The gun grabbers have specifically told their followers to "avoid statistics" and keep it all about emotion. They know that if facts and numbers are involved they don't have a case. So, they keep up the "won't-someone-please-think-about-the-children" argument (preferably surrounded by children).

To be a felon, you have to be convicted for a crime with a punishment of no less than a year in jail?

Judges have a lot of leeway in sentencing. Convicted felons can and do get probation - no jail time.

There must be more to the person's story. It either wasn't his first conviction and all priors were misdemeanors, or he had a shitload of the stuff (kilos, not ounces), or he did something really, really stupid in the court to piss the judge off.

As to the background checks, we have a regulated firearm market in this country already....

None of which is relevant to the question of how background checks, even universal background checks, become "gun grabs" as the OP suggested.

want a clear cut solution to mass shootings.

That's easy. Stop making people crazy.

No, that might sound hard but really, it's easy. Nobody has the stomach for it though. It starts by removing sociopaths from all positions of authority.

Heh, toward the end of your post you came close to that. It's not the drugs. Well, it is sort of the drugs. But more importantly we need to stop creating the need for those drugs in people.

Because most politicians are ruthless opportunists who will use any situation, even the murder of random people, to promote their agenda.

Because most politicians are ruthless opportunists who will use any situation, and will even murder random people, to promote their agenda.

FTFY

Seeing that both the Soviet and German count uses their death toll + killed for the total number its a large stretch.

Ok.

I forgot about the bike and some of those other ones I hadn't heard. I will have to look into it further. Thanks.

Do the background check laws currently on the books or proposed do that?