Forum: Author Hangout

Perpetuating illiteracy

Justin Case 🚫

Reading a story. Came across yet another case of perpetuating the misinformation that some illiterates (likely in holly-weird) have convinced a gullible population exists.

*** "Do you have a firearm?" asked.

"Yes," replied. "It is registered and completely legal. I have followed all of your state's rules and regulations. And yes, I know how to use it." ***

PLEASE STOP !!!
There is NO SUCH THING as "gun registration" in the US.
The records of a purchase only exist in the gun shop's "bound book", and are not available to government unless there is a warrant or the dealer closes business.

"Gun registries" are ILLEGAL due to being unConstitutional.

The CSI television series is the most recent and major offender in this farce.
The often depict the cops doing a simple search and finding a person owns a "registered handgun".

Sure, I am being "too technical" with this rant.
But if you spread lies and disinformation as fact with your stories, then you have no credibility in your words or your work.
And that irritates the little "picky part" on my asshole.

Replies: REP rkimmelerre Paladin_HGWT Paladin_HGWT ystokes doctor_wing_nut Michael Loucks shinerdrinker solreader50

REP 🚫

@Justin Case

There is NO SUCH THING as "gun registration" in the US.

You may want to reconsider your position. Congress passed a law in 1968 - 26 U.S. Code § 5841 - Registration of firearms. That law requires registration of firearms.

You may be basing your position on The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which made it illegal to institute laws requiring the registration of guns from that date forward.

However, it did not nullify existing laws. Since 26 U.S. Code § 5841 proceeded FOPA, it is still valid.

Gun registries" are ILLEGAL due to being unConstitutional.

Sorry but that is not true. The Constitution does not prohibit registration of guns. The only mention of guns in the Constitution that I am aware of is citizens have the right to bear arms. You can go out store and buy a gun but that sale must be registered.

Replies: Justin Case

Justin Case 🚫

@REP

Quite the opposite.
Everything I said can be CONFIRMED with a tiny bit of research on the BATF web site.

rkimmelerre 🚫

@Justin Case

That may be ignorance, but it's not illiterate.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@Justin Case

There is NO SUCH THING as "gun registration" in the US.
The records of a purchase only exist in the gun shop's "bound book", and are not available to government unless there is a warrant or the dealer closes business.

"Gun registries" are ILLEGAL due to being unConstitutional.

Yes, and No.

There are Federal Registries of some firearms, in particular "machineguns" and other fully automatic weapons, that require a "Class IV" License (which negates your Fourth Amendment Rights against Searches of your Home or other place of storage of those particular arms.)

NYC, Chicago, and several other polities have legislated Registration of firearms. Some of those laws, ordnances, etc. have been found to be Unconstitutional by various Federal Courts, and even the US Supreme Court.

Some city councils, mayors, etc. have deliberately enacted ordnances they Know to be Unconstitutional, often Boasting to their Donors that, "It is the Law, until it is fought in court!" Sadly, this disenfranchises mostly poor "minorities" (who are often the majority in "inner cities"). Because wealthy (and thus "well connected" "Limousine Liberals" can obtain permits when the "Proles" cannot! The "beautiful people" can also hire Armed Security.

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@Justin Case

"Yes," replied. "It is registered and completely legal. I have followed all of your state's rules and regulations. And yes, I know how to use it."

I agree that this is a subtle for of Indoctrination.

As a Firearms Instructor, and proponent of the Second Amendment, and our other Rights; I strongly encourage every person to become familiar, and get periodic refresher training in Firearms Safety, and for those who choose to own a firearm, training to be proficient with their weapons of choice.

I oppose State or much worse Federal "training" Requirements. Recent laws passed in the state of Oregon are the most egregious example. The (Un)reasonable "firearms safety" regulations Require any prospective new firearms owner to receive training and Certification from their local law enforcement entity...

The Oregon legislature provided No funding for such things. They have in fact "defunded" most law enforcement entities in Oregon. Before the law was passed, various Sheriffs and Chiefs of police testified that they would not be able to provide any such training, not for years at least, and some stated they couldn't imagine ever being able to comply with the law. Thus denying the citizens of Oregon their Constitutional Rights!

This obscene law is in the pipeline to the US Supreme Court. Until then those citizens are denied their rights in a nearly Lawless state!

Other politicians are considering enacting such Unconstitutional legislation, cause, until it is successfully challenged...

ystokes 🚫

@Justin Case

So you have to register a car when you buy it.
You need to prove you know how to drive a car.
You need to register your house when you buy it.
You need to register to vote in this country.
You need to let the Government how much you make per year.
None of these things kill people.

But God forbid you have to register a gun let alone prove you know how to use it.

Replies: Dominions Son Justin Case

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@ystokes

But God forbid you have to register a gun let alone prove you know how to use it.

As long as the licensing is "shall issue", so the gun licensing is on the same terms as your driver's license.

Your driver's license isn't limited to one specific car.

There's no limit on the number of cars you can own or how often you can buy a car.

No background check to buy a car.

No limit on the size of your gas tank.

No limit on how much gas you can own.

Felons are allowed to own cars.

When you travel within the US other states are legally obligated to recognize your out of state driver's license.

None of these things kill people.

Tell that to the people who were killed at the Waukesha Christmas parade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack

Replies: ystokes

ystokes 🚫

@Dominions Son

Tell that to the people who were killed at the Waukesha Christmas parade.

I guess I should have said all but one of those kill people.

The car didn't kill people, people kill people.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫
Updated:

@ystokes

The car didn't kill people, people kill people.

That's the gun argument.

Although with self-driving cars, the car kills people (in one case a dog).

Justin Case 🚫

@ystokes

Correct.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a RIGHT to own a car, nor does it prohibit the government from infringing on your ability to own a car.
Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a Right.

Replies: ystokes

ystokes 🚫

@Justin Case

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a RIGHT to own a car, nor does it prohibit the government from infringing on your ability to own a car.

They had cars in 1776? Wow who knew. Just like they didn't have guns that shot 100 rounds in a few seconds right?

But then again no where in the Constitution does it mention women or slaves having any rights. That's where Originalists always get it wrong. Thats why they allow amendments to be added long after the original was written. Even the bible gets changed.

Replies: DBActive

DBActive 🚫

@ystokes

But then again no where in the Constitution does it mention women or slaves having any rights. That's where Originalists always get it wrong. Thats why they allow amendments to be added long after the original was written.

Women had exactly the same rights as men under the Constitution as ratified and their rights were recognized equally under the Bill of Rights. Slaves were not.
Slaves and all others resident in the US granted Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment.
The problem the anti-2nd Amendment people have is that they are not able to amend the Constitution to remove the prohibition of interference with the pre-exisiting right of the people to bear arms.

Replies: ystokes richardshagrin

ystokes 🚫

@DBActive

Women had exactly the same rights as men under the Constitution as ratified and their rights were recognized equally under the Bill of Rights. Slaves were not.

Where in the original constitution does it give women the right to vote like men did?

Where in the original constitution does it give women the right to hold office like men did?

Where in the original constitution does it give women the right to inherite property if they were the first born like men did?

Why did it take till the 1920s before they got those rights?

The problem the anti-2nd Amendment people have is that they are not able to amend the Constitution to remove the prohibition of interference with the pre-exisiting right of the people to bear arms.

No I am one of those that believe it should be followed as written.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A bunch of drunken rednecks don't make a "Well regulated Militia."

Replies: Dominions Son joyR

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@ystokes

Where in the original constitution does it give women the right to vote like men did?

Sorry, the original constitution has no right to vote for anyone. It was left entirely to the individual states to define the suffrage as broadly or narrowly as they chose.

And in most of the states in the early years, suffrage (the right to vote) was limited not just to men, but to male land owners, so not all white men had the right to vote.

Where in the original constitution does it give women the right to hold office like men did?

There is no right to hold public office for anyone.

Where in the original constitution does it give women the right to inherite property if they were the first born like men did?

The original constitution had no right for men to inherit, and the US constitution still contains no such right. Again, regulation of inheritance was left entirely to the individual states.

Replies: ystokes

ystokes 🚫

@Dominions Son

So is what your saying that our great founding fathers felt voting wasn't a right but a privilege left up to each state?

Once again it shows "states rights" are used to suppress people. It seems every time "states rights" is brought up is to take people's rights away.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@ystokes

So is what your saying that our great founding fathers felt voting wasn't a right but a privilege left up to each state?

Actually of federal offices, only Representatives were required to be elected by the constitution as originally ratified. Senators were supposed to be chosen by the state legislature and the state legislatures could set any method they wanted for selecting electors for the Electoral College.

US Constitution

Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article 1 Section 3 clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Yes, the founders pretty much treated voting as a privilege not a right.

There is a reason why many argue that the US is a republic, not a democracy.

Replies: joyR

joyR 🚫

@Dominions Son

There is a reason why many argue that the US is a republic, not a democracy.

Of course it is a republic, Benjamin Franklin said so.

joyR 🚫

@ystokes

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Or

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The truth is that neither part was originally in bold. Both are equally important.

Why?

The architects of the constitution wanted a system of checks and balances, they feared an overly oppressive federal government so engineered the final check to be an armed population able to overthrow their oppressors.

They could not overthrow their European oppressors which is why they fled to America in the first place.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@joyR

I'm sure that when Donald Trump gets back in he could rustle up a distant nephew or similar to regulate the militia ;-)

AJ

Replies: joyR

joyR 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

I'm sure that when Donald Trump gets back in he could rustle up a distant nephew or similar to regulate the militia ;-)

If you farted into a ballon (again), would you trust him to regulate its release?

ETD errant apostrophe.

Replies: awnlee jawking ystokes

awnlee jawking 🚫

@joyR

it's

its!

And yes, obviously. Politicians are completely honest and trustworthy as has been proven time and time again. Of course, in this context, regulating its release means not releasing at all unless it's at a swanky dinner party.

AJ

ystokes 🚫

@joyR

If you farted into a balloon

Would that be considered a fetish? Like pre-scat?

Replies: Dominions Son awnlee jawking

Dominions Son 🚫

@ystokes

Would that be considered a fetish?

Only if you used it for sexual gratification somehow.

Replies: ystokes

ystokes 🚫

@Dominions Son

Considering some of the stories on this site I could see that happening.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@ystokes

Would that be considered a fetish? Like pre-scat?

There's allegedly a lucrative market for soiled underwear exploited by certain minor celebs, so this would be like getting it from one of the sources ;-)

AJ

Replies: joyR ystokes

joyR 🚫

@awnlee jawking

There's allegedly a lucrative market for soiled underwear exploited by certain minor celebs

Not just a market, they have their own religion. The church of scatiantology, started by Ronnie Hubbie.

Full of shit and highly exploitative.

ystokes 🚫

@awnlee jawking

There's allegedly a lucrative market for soiled underwear exploited by certain minor celebs

In Japan they sell them in vending machines for your sniffing happiness.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@ystokes

happiness

Did they misspell nappymess?

AJ

Replies: ystokes

ystokes 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Did they misspell nappymess?

Damn autocorrect.

richardshagrin 🚫

@DBActive

right of the people to bear arms

You don't have to wear a long sleeve shirt, you have the right to bare arms. And you can find a grizzly and give him guns so you arm bears.

doctor_wing_nut 🚫

@Justin Case

There is NO SUCH THING as "gun registration" in the US.

If you're talking about 'long guns' (as in rifles) you may be right, but if you're talking about handguns you're wrong.

https://www.psp.pa.gov/firearms-information/Pages/Firearms%20Records.aspx

First line, "The Firearms Division maintains records on firearms licensing and transfers. "

All your righteous indignation aside, a simple search would have shown you the facts, at least as they apply to Pa. Federal law only prohibits a NATIONAL gun registry, but several states (Maryland, California, Hawaii, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, D.C.) do in fact have registries.

https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registration_requirements_by_state

Michael Loucks 🚫
Updated:

@Justin Case

"Gun registries" are ILLEGAL due to being unConstitutional.

Someone should mention that to Illinois, which requires an FOID card for simple possession of a firearm.

Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearms, firearm ammunition, tasers or stun guns within the State must have in their possession a valid FOID Card issued in his or her name. Non-residents are not eligible to have a FOID Card.

Link: FOID FAQ

You also need an FOID card to purchase/transfer a firearm.

430 ILCS 65/3(a) - "Except as provided in Section 3a, no person may knowingly transfer, or cause to be transferred, any firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser to any person within this State unless the transferee with whom he deals displays either: (1) a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card which has previously been issued in his or her name by the Illinois State Police under the provisions of this Act; or (2) a currently valid license to carry a concealed firearm which has previously been issued in his or her name by the Illinois State Police under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. In addition, all firearm, stun gun, and taser transfers by federally licensed firearm dealers are subject to Section 3.1."

Link: Firearms Transfers

If you click the 'Start a Firearm Transfer' button, you'll be presented with a screen that requires entry of the make, model, and serial number of the firearm to be transferred. The form is required to be filed with the Illinois State Police.

Replies: Paladin_HGWT Justin Case

Paladin_HGWT 🚫

@Michael Loucks

Someone should mention that to Illinois, which requires an FOID card for simple possession of a firearm.

Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearms, firearm ammunition, tasers or stun guns within the State must have in their possession a valid FOID Card issued in his or her name. Non-residents are not eligible to have a FOID Card.

I am surprised the FOID Card has not been challenged on Constitutional lines. There are military and naval bases in Illinois, as well as non-resident students, in particular foreign students. Under US Federal law (and the US Constitution) foreigners legally in the USA (with a "Green Card" etc.) have the Constitutional Right to purchase, own, and use a firearm. {Most military and naval personnel are legally residents of the HoR: Home of Record; where they vote.

Replies: Michael Loucks richardshagrin

Michael Loucks 🚫
Updated:

@Paladin_HGWT

I am surprised the FOID Card has not been challenged on Constitutional lines. There are military and naval bases in Illinois, as well as non-resident students, in particular foreign students. Under US Federal law (and the US Constitution) foreigners legally in the USA (with a "Green Card" etc.) have the Constitutional Right to purchase, own, and use a firearm. {Most military and naval personnel are legally residents of the HoR: Home of Record; where they vote.

The FAQ I linked to answers your questions.

Non-citizens:

You will be required to provide an Alien Registration Number, I-94 Admission Number, or USCIS Number upon application to determine your eligibility. You can find these numbers on either your Permanent Resident Card or Employment Authorization Card. Subject to a narrow exception, if you are currently in the U.S. under a non-immagrant visa, you will not be eligible to obtain a FOID Card.

Exemptions:

• United States Marshals, while engaged in the operation of their official duties.

• Members of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, while engaged in the operation of their official duties.

• Federal officials required to carry firearms, while engaged in the operation of their official duties.

• Members of bona fide veteran's organizations which receive firearms directly from the armed forces of the United States, while using the firearms for ceremonial purposes with blank ammunition.

• Nonresident hunters during hunting season, with valid nonresident hunting licenses and while in an area where hunting is permitted.

• Nonresidents while on a firing or shooting range recognized by the Department of State Police.

• Nonresidents while at a firearm showing or display recognized by the Department of State Police.

• Nonresidents whose firearms are unloaded and enclosed in a case.

• Nonresidents who are currently licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state.

• Un-emancipated minors while in the custody and immediate control of their parent or legal guardian and the parent or legal guardian currently has a valid FOID card.

• Color guards of bona fide veteran's organizations or members of bona fide American Legion bands while using firearms for ceremonial purposes with blank ammunition.

• Nonresident hunters whose state of residence does not require them to be licensed or registered to possess a firearm and only during hunting season. The nonresident must have a valid hunting license and be accompanied by and be using a firearm owned by, a person who possesses a valid FOID card. This is allowed only while in an area within a commercial club licensed under the Wildlife Code where hunting is permitted and controlled, but in no instance upon sites owned or managed by the Department of Natural Resources.

• Resident hunters who are properly authorized to hunt and, while accompanied by a person who possesses a valid FOID card, hunt in an area within a commercial club licensed under the Wildlife Code where hunting is permitted.

And for Active Duty Military:

You will need to provide information for the base where you are stationed while in Illinois, a copy of your military assignment orders, a copy of your U.S. Military ID and the completed Out of State Affidavit, found in the FOID tab of the section Helpful Documents.

richardshagrin 🚫

@Paladin_HGWT

Illinois

Combines ill and annoy.

Justin Case 🚫

@Michael Loucks

Sorry. I am not required or expected to keep up with all the infringements by communist States.

Replies: Michael Loucks

Michael Loucks 🚫

@Justin Case

Sorry. I am not required or expected to keep up with all the infringements by communist States.

You made assumptions contrary to fact, without reading the links provided which explained that your objections were already taken into account, and explains why the challenge you suggested (again without reading the links) would fail.

shinerdrinker 🚫

@Justin Case

I used to write a lot about perpetuating illiteracy, but it just seemed to be not much of a growth industry to write about... for some reason.

Sorry, I'll get back to my real writing.

solreader50 🚫

@Justin Case

My first response is that your diatribe has nothing to do with illiteracy which is the inability to read or write. Not the inability to know the content of all relevant laws federal, state, county and city in the USA. If anything it has to do with ignorance. So Perpetuating ignorance might have been a more considered title.

You say Reading a story, but give no details of the story. How do I know that the story was based in the USA. Maybe it was Canada, maybe Germany - I don't know.

And when you think back to the good old days in the Wild West, wasn't having to surrender your gun to Wyatt Earp in Dodge City just a very effective form of gun registration.

Replies: Dominions Son Switch Blayde joyR Marius-6

Dominions Son 🚫

@solreader50

wasn't having to surrender your gun to Wyatt Earp in Dodge City just a very effective form of gun registration.

No, it wasn't a form of gun registration at all.

Replies: helmut_meukel

helmut_meukel 🚫

@Dominions Son

No, it wasn't a form of gun registration at all.

No permanent registration, but somehow they had to avoid that a guy when retrieving his gun when leaving could claim another mans better gun as his.

HM.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@helmut_meukel

No permanent registration, but somehow they had to avoid that a guy when retrieving his gun when leaving could claim another mans better gun as his.

That's achievable with something like a coat check receipt. Two copies of one number, one gets attached to the gun, the other the owner of the gun keeps. No identifying information kept even temporarily.

Switch Blayde 🚫

@solreader50

surrender your gun to Wyatt Earp in Dodge City just a very effective form of gun registration.

Gun control, not registration.

joyR 🚫

@solreader50

wasn't having to surrender your gun to Wyatt Earp in Dodge City just a very effective form of gun registration.

It wasn't registration, it was gun control. As with Dodge City, Tombstone also had a city ordinance prohibiting carrying weapons in town and giving lawmen the power to disarm anyone 'carrying'.

It's effectiveness at gun control can be illustrated by what happened at the O.K. Corral.

Gun control is a great way to stop law abiding citizens from owning and carrying guns. It has repeatedly proved utterly unable to prevent the lawless from obtaining and using guns.

A bunch of idiots decided Prohibition was a good idea. Did it stop people drinking illicitly? No.

There was/is a 'War on Drugs', a stupid title, especially as those enforcing those laws are losing the war.

Making laws that ordinary citizens will ignore, circumvent or just see those in power evading, does nothing except diminish the public's respect for the law, it's enforcers and the government.

The Military understand: "Don't give an order you know won't be obeyed".

Government can't understand: "Don't make a law you cannot enforce."

Prosecuting gun owners for items that were legal, busting addicts, whilst celebrities and politicians check into 'rehab' for 'drug issues' but never get arrested, is NOT enforcing the law.

As for gun control, the Second Amendment states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Every oath given by those who might wish to disarm the people, includes the words "support and defend the Constitution." (Or similar) So any attempt to disarm the people can only be done by breaking the oath sworn upon taking office.

The ONLY practical way to make gun control a reality is to repeal the second amendment, openly, honestly, and with overwhelming public support of 'the people'. Oh, and take illegal guns and their users off the street, permanently, publicly and so totally as to reassure 'the people' that they are protected.

Chances of that happening?

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Chances of that happening?

Replies: madnige

madnige 🚫

@Dominions Son

@joyR

Chances of that happening?

i

Is that a typo, or a clever way of saying 'orthogonal to reality'?

Replies: Dominions Son awnlee jawking

Dominions Son 🚫

@madnige

i = the imaginary number (square root of -1)

https://www.mathnasium.com/blog/what-are-imaginary-numbers

awnlee jawking 🚫

@madnige

@joyR
Chances of that happening?
i
Is that a typo, or a clever way of saying 'orthogonal to reality'?

It's Apple's trademarked version of nothing ;-)

AJ

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@awnlee jawking

It's Apple's trademarked version

Because the true value of their products are multiples of the square root of -1.

Marius-6 🚫

@solreader50

And when you think back to the good old days in the Wild West, wasn't having to surrender your gun to Wyatt Earp in Dodge City just a very effective form of gun registration.

Residents of the town, including people living on nearby farms and ranches were not required to "turn in their guns" this was primarily focused upon cowboys, miners, or others come to town to drink and "let off a little steam" because when drunk some of them would fire their weapons negligently, often after sunset, when decent folk were trying to sleep.

Most law abiding townsfolk wouldn't carry around a firearm. Ranches and farmers would because of snakes and other threats on their way to and from town.

Some, if not most taverns/saloons, and hotels would have a place to secure firearms; mentioning the "service" and any town ordnance to new comers. Cowboys on a trail drive were encouraged to leave their firearms at their camp/chuck wagon; or at the office of the Town Marshall.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

Perpetuating illiteracy

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...