• Please remember that Politics, Off Topic and Global Warming boards are for fairly serious discussion. I would like to see language used in those boards reflect that level of serious discussion. Sand Pit, Members. Improvements—go your hardest.

GUNS: American Gun Control Non-Compliance

DreamRyderX

Active member
..


Don’t Count On American Compliance With Gun Confiscation




Source: NRA-ILA
First, non-compliance with gun-confiscation laws has been widespread even in countries that don’t protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Second, Americans are already notoriously non-compliant with strict gun-control measures in states that have enacted them on a smaller scale.

Third, the firearms and magazines that gun-control advocates wish to confiscate simply are not a driving force behind homicides—and America’s lawful gun owners know it. People rarely respond well to being scapegoated, and otherwise law-abiding gun owners aren’t likely to prove an exception to this rule.


Americans Are Notoriously Non-Compliant With Gun-Control Laws

If significant and widespread non-compliance is so common in countries without America’s gun culture or constitutional protections for civilian gun ownership, it would be almost laughable to presume Americans would be more compliant with overbearing gun-control measures.

After all, civilian gun possession is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, as is an aversion to gun confiscation. The American Revolution itself officially ignited over an effort by King George III and his military generals to disarm the colonists; the battles at Lexington and Concord began because the British were coming to seize the colonists’ powder stores and render them defenseless against the armed enforcement of tyrannical laws.

Non-compliance with British gun-control mandates was widespread before and during the war. The Second Amendment was passed in large part as a counterbalance against government impulses toward tyranny, and an assurance against government attempts to create select militias with which to oppress a citizenry disarmed through arbitrary or burdensome gun-control laws.

➤ It is hardly surprising, then, that even today, many otherwise law-abiding Americans fail to comply with laws they perceive as arbitrary infringements on their Second Amendment rights. Consider, for example, what happened when New York, in 2013, banned the future purchase of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and required current owners to register their estimated 1 million “assault-style weapons” with the state.

➤ Despite the threat of serious criminal penalties for non-compliance and extended periods of “amnesty,” by 2015 fewer than 45,000 firearms had been registered. In other words, it appears that tens of thousands of New Yorkers continue to simply ignore the law.

Similar rates of non-compliance have been observed for constitutionally suspect confiscation laws in other states; in fact, after New Jersey banned the civilian possession of standard magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, an investigation failed to discover a single instance where one of the state’s one million gun owners turned a prohibited magazine in to law enforcement authorities, as the statute required.

New Jersey and New York are states that historically have subjected their residents to much stricter gun-control measures relative to the rest of the country. If non-compliance is so widespread in states where residents are used to being subject to arbitrary and overbearing gun laws, there is no reason to believe that residents in more gun-friendly states would rush to turn in their rifles and magazines just because the federal government mandated it.

Lawful Gun Owners Know Their Rifles Aren’t the Problem

This widespread non-compliance can be explained by America’s historical aversion to gun control. But it can also be explained by the reality that Americans are increasingly aware of how gun-confiscation laws turn them into scapegoats without actually addressing the real problems.

Why? Because lawfully owned semi-automatic rifles are fundamentally not a driving force behind homicides in this country, or anywhere else.

Nearly two out of every three deaths by firearms in the United States are the result of suicide. In cases of suicide, neither gun type nor magazine capacity ultimately matter; moreover, while it is true that the U.S. has a fairly high rate of suicides committed with firearms, our overall suicide rate is relatively unremarkable compared with many countries with much stricter gun-control laws.

Semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, are responsible for only a fraction of 1% of all gun deaths in the U.S. every year, while rifles of any kind account for about 3% of all gun homicides.

And finally, a majority of crimes committed with guns in the U.S. are carried out by individuals who are already prohibited from owning firearms—not by lawful gun owners.

In other words, lawful gun owners in the U.S. are not the problem. Confiscating their rifles and magazines is not a genuine, good-faith policy solution to save lives.

The rule of law has always been an important foundation of American society. But it is shockingly naïve for any politician or organization to expect millions of American gun owners to simply turn in to the government the very types of bearable small arms protected by the Second Amendment. It is even more naïve for them to believe that, even if we were to double the rate of compliance seen in other countries, there would be a profound effect on gun-related deaths in the U.S. because of it.

There are, of course, ways to further reduce violent crime and gun-related deaths in the U.S. States can and should, for example, continue to invest in adequate mental-health treatment for their citizens, in stopping the flow of illegal gun trafficking and in ensuring that more law-abiding citizens can defend themselves in more places.

But, if the government wishes to confiscate the guns of peaceable citizens, it should be prepared to find most Americans unwilling to comply—just as they were in 1775.
There are well over 130 million American hard-core gun owners, who own in excess of 390 million firearms, & over 90% of those firearms are un-registered. So, in a nutshell --- the US Government doesn't know where 390+ million firearms are located, much less who owns them.







..
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
If it's unregistered does it make it illegal?
No, over 90% of all legally owned firearms in the United States are unregistered.


In the USA it is illegal for the government to keep any type of firearms data base, directly linking a firearm to it's owner.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner.
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
put it in the trigger happy dickheads thread ya fucking troll....... the world thinks your a fucking idiot. post your shit propaganda all in the one place
 
Last edited:

MilesAway

Bongalong
put it in the trigger happy dickheads thread ya fucking troll....... the world thinks your a fucking idiot. post your shit propaganda all in the one place
F off fascist: all you and ya poofy mates post is mass immigration propaganda to lower everyones wage except your rich cabal of mates.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
put it in the trigger happy dickheads thread ya fucking troll....... the world thinks your a fucking idiot. post your shit propaganda all in the one place
Better yet Hatty......just 'cause you like it so much.........I'll damn well post what I what, where I want, & you can't say jack squat that can make me do otherwise............so .............
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
..


Voicing Refusal to Comply With New Gun Laws Has Historical Precedent
Source: The Heritage Foundation
➤ Voicing a collective refusal to comply with laws perceived as unconstitutional or unjust is a fundamental part of American democratic discourse.

▶ Rosa Parks refused to comply with a city ordinance mandating segregated buses. MLK spent periods in jail for his repeated refusals to comply with court orders.

▶ “We will not comply” is neither an undemocratic threat nor an un-American resolve. It's a long-standing part of democratic discourse.

On Jan. 20, as Americans remembered civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., an estimated 10,000 people peacefully rallied in Richmond, Virginia, to protest the recent introduction of highly contentious gun-control bills into the state legislature. Motivated in part by the “Second Amendment Sanctuary” movement that has seen more than 100 Virginia counties and cities pass measures denouncing—and in some cases, preemptively refusing to enforce—constitutionally suspect gun laws, some Virginians at the rally began chants of “We will not comply.”

Many gun-control advocates have denounced these chants (and the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement itself) as undemocratic and anti-American. While this reaction was predictable, voicing a collective refusal to comply with laws perceived as unconstitutional or unjust is a fundamental part of American democratic discourse. In fact, the mantra “we will not comply” helped set the stage for America as it exists today.

In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which imposed a tax on nearly every piece of paper used by the American colonists. The colonists considered this a direct tax on them without the approval of the colonial legislatures—a flagrant violation of longstanding legal precedent and an affront to their rights as Englishmen.

Threats of non-compliance and public protests so troubled Parliament that the act was repealed before ever being put into effect.

Thus began nearly two decades of actual and threatened colonial non-compliance with British laws that increasingly threatened the rights and liberties of the colonists. This included widespread non-compliance with laws that severely curtailed the ability of colonists to keep and bear arms.

Americans routinely circumvented or ignored bans on the importation of firearms and powder, and eventually resorted to armed defensive action against British attempts to confiscate guns and powder stores from colonial communities.

Non-compliance with federal laws mandating the return of escaped slaves was rampant throughout northern states prior to the Civil War. In 1850, the Vermont legislature went so far as to pass a law effectively requiring state judicial and law enforcement officers to act in direct opposition to the federal Fugitive Slave Law.

Even in jurisdictions that did not act officially act to condone non-compliance, individual non-compliance with federal slave laws was nonetheless widespread. Moreover, a generally lax approach to local enforcement in the north raised the ire of Southern states, where calls abounded for the federal government to send in military units to ensure adequate enforcement.

Importantly, many abolitionists refused to keep their intentions quiet—they, too, were vocal about their refusal to comply with laws they considered both unconstitutional and morally unjust. “We will not comply” was very much a general refrain of the now-beloved abolitionist movement.

Non-compliance permeated democratic discourse throughout the 20th century, as well. Some of the most revered figures of the Civil Rights Era were actually brought to the national spotlight by acts of non-compliance. Rosa Parks refused to comply with a city ordinance mandating segregated buses that would force her to the back of the bus. Hundreds refused to comply with state laws by engaging in sit-ins. Martin Luther King Jr., spent periods in jail for his repeated refusals to comply with court orders.

Of course, America’s history with non-compliance and civil disobedience has also been complicated. Not all acts of non-compliance are later held to be meritorious. Many times, one side’s appeal to a higher law is another side’s accusation that the rule of law has been betrayed.

Non-compliance with school integration orders resulted in sometimes-violent standoffs among local, state and federal agencies, and history has not treated these acts of noncompliance kindly.

Non-compliance with alcohol laws during the Prohibition Era helped foster the rise of gangster violence (though, interestingly enough, widespread non-compliance was one of the major underlying factors leading to Prohibition’s eventual repeal).

During the Vietnam War, an estimated tens of thousands of young draft-eligible men faced severe criticism and legal consequences for refusing to comply with what they perceived to be an unjust draft system that would send them to fight in an unjust war.

But the fact that history judges some acts of non-compliance more harshly than others does not negate the reality of history itself. It merely reminds us that threats of non-compliance should not be undertaken lightly. They should be based on well-reasoned and principled appeals that will withstand the judgment of our descendants.

Threatening non-compliance is not unique to modern gun owners, nor unique to modern American discourse.

“We will not comply” is neither an undemocratic threat nor an un-American resolve.

It is a long-standing part of democratic discourse, and an utterly American promise to strive for compliance with a higher law.

Americans will not comply with they consider Unconstitutional or even unjust Law.

It is their Right, but even more, it is their Duty! Historically, America was built upon the strong shoulders of Non-Compliance......just ask some dead English soldiers, shot dead because they tried to compel Americans to comply back in 1776.


Nope, Americans will not comply!


..
 
Last edited:

hatty

cynical profane bastard
only a fucking cunt would mention the right to big guns and to use them to shoot people (children)................. and Rosa Parks in the same sentence!

you disgust me,

someone who is quoted on these boards as using the term " sand NIGGER" suddenly brings up Rosa Parkes to justify possessing a big gun.

get fucked DRX!...... next time you go back (if you ever really left) i hope you choke on one of your beloved bullets
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
Aw shucks Hatty.....you flatter me.............................



◈ In America Murder is illegal.

◈ Attempting to murder is illegal.

◈ A criminal felon possessing, attempting to purchase, or in any way owning a firearm is illegal.

◈ It is illegal for a person with a diagnosed violent form of mental illness to possess, attempt to purchase, or in any way own a firearm.

◈ Shooting & killing people indiscriminately is illegal.

◈ Using firearms in any criminal manner is illegal.

◈ The Right to Keep & Use Firearms expressly for self-defense, or to defend the lives of one's loved ones, friends, or fellow citizens is 100% legal in most circumstances in the United States of America.

◈ The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution affirms, defends, & protects an American Citizen's Right to Keep & Bear Arms to use in Self-Defense.....of himself/herself, their loved ones, friends, & fellow citizens.


If you, or anyone else for that matter, finds Our Rights as American Citizens offensive, you'll just have to suck it up, & get over it, or face the reality that they'll remain offensive to you for the rest of your life. Our American Rights will serve us Americans, & our posterity, for all time.





"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.........."



 
Last edited:

hatty

cynical profane bastard
so why make it so easy for fuckwits to get them?

wipe your ass with your shit document....... it ain't worth two tenths of fuck all! ....( unless it suits your agenda)

try not to get shot or shoot anyone this weekend........... oh wait, you claim to live in a country that doesn't just sell guns at walmart and then lock up people when they use them for bad stuff.

so you should be fine........... but then, we all get a little bit sad sometimes
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
so why make it so easy for fuckwits to get them?

wipe your ass with your shit document....... it ain't worth two tenths of fuck all! ....( unless it suits your agenda)

try not to get shot or shoot anyone this weekend........... oh wait, you claim to live in a country that doesn't just sell guns at walmart and then lock up people when they use them for bad stuff.

so you should be fine........... but then, we all get a little bit sad sometimes
Are you talking about the document that saved your western lifestyle?
 

hatty

cynical profane bastard
Are you talking about the document that saved your western lifestyle?
a document from 1767 penned on the other side of the planet

saved my western lifestyle?

Christ on a cracker drah you must be more drunk than i thought.......... Happy friday, and hangover .
 
Last edited:

DreamRyderX

Active member
..


Second Amendment Sanctuaries/Gun Sanctuaries
Law Enforcement Will Refuse to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Law


Second Amendment Sanctuaries



Source: Wikipedia
Second Amendment sanctuary, also known as a gun sanctuary, refers to states, counties, or localities in the United States that have adopted laws or resolutions to prohibit or impede the enforcement of certain gun control measures perceived as violative of the Second Amendment such as universal gun background checks, high capacity magazine bans, assault weapon bans, red flag laws, etc.[1][2]

.... Continued.............


Law Enforcement Officers in these States, Counties, & Local Jurisdictions have taken the stance that they will refuse to enforce ALL Federal, State, or Local Gun Control Law which violates the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, & to do otherwise would be a violation of their sworn oaths of office - to uphold the US Constitution!




..
 
Last edited:
Top