Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602573]Considering the court wouldn't make such an unpopular decision; and considering congress would immediately pass law against said ruling, your scenario makes no sense. If the court did that they'd be overturning DOZENS of previous SCOTUS decisions. And with this, I'm done. It's almost 1 am and I have a 12 hour shift in 5 hours.[/QUOTE] my argument isn't if they could, but if they did. you would have to be content with it, because you're content with their current definitions of arms, or is it a double standard? can the supreme court only rule on things that benefit your rights, rather than change them?

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;50601916]Isn't crime really fucking low in Hawaii? This is unecessary as fuck lol. Last mass shooting in Hawaii was Xerox in 1999.[/QUOTE] It's really high actually. A lot of drug related crime specifically.

[QUOTE=nox;50602289]Care to name a few? Other than exotic one-off prototypes and battery guns? AFAIK the Girandoni air rifle was the first non-muzzleloading infantry firearm, and that was around 20 years after the constitution.[/QUOTE] Kalthoff repeater, a lever action rifle dating back to around 1650. Capacity between 5 and 12 shots, fed from separate shot and powder magazines. Later models also had a priming magazine, allowing them to be fired as fast as you could work the action. Too expensive for general infantry issue (also rather delicate mechanically), but the Royal Foot Guards of Denmark used about 100 of these guns in the Siege of Copenhagen (1658). Also the Cookson Repeater, different mechanism operated by rotating a crank on the side of the gun, based on 1680 italian design, 7 shot capacity. These guns were expensive and probably too complicated to maintain for most soldiers, hence a lack of widespread military adoption, but even back in the 1700s it must have been clear that repeating firearms with higher capacity would eventually replace muzzleloaders.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50601905]I get that, but it sets a precedent that can spill over into other things other than guns. That's the problem.[/QUOTE] Yes god forbid the state keep track of ownership of other deadly things such as aircraft, cars and boats and that they'll require some kind of license to own and operate those potentially deadly weapons too [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602573]Considering the court wouldn't make such an unpopular decision; and considering congress would immediately pass law against said ruling, your scenario makes no sense. If the court did that they'd be overturning DOZENS of previous SCOTUS decisions. And with this, I'm done. It's almost 1 am and I have a 12 hour shift in 5 hours.[/QUOTE] Actually it's only a handful of Scotus decisions. They've upheld the right for the federal government to limit what kind of arms people can own many times including challenges to the national firearms act, it's only recently like in the last 10 years has the court taken a dramatic gun-friendly swing

[QUOTE=Fort83;50602851]If you're truly a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, then you have nothing to worry about. Your precious guns aren't at risk unless you start committing crimes or are otherwise deemed unfit to own one. That said it might be for the best if they didn't call it a "criminal record database".[/QUOTE]Which in the case of anti-gun states, self-defense is not a good enough reason to own one. You can only say "you have nothing to worry about" for so long until Draconian stuff starts happening.

Ending the drug war would solve so much of the violence problem the USA has. Rather than criminalizing law-abiding citizens. That'll only create more problems. But the politicians don't like it when the people have power.

boy i am sure glad law abiding gun owners are treated the same as child sex offenders im glad the gov is putting up a public "do not rob this place because you'll get shot" list now everyone can be safe and gun crimes will vanish overnight [sp]this law is fucking retarded for a variety of reasons[/sp]

[QUOTE=Fort83;50602851]If you're truly a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, then you have nothing to worry about. Your precious guns aren't at risk unless you start committing crimes or are otherwise deemed unfit to own one. That said it might be for the best if they didn't call it a "criminal record database".[/QUOTE]Here is something to worry about:[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50602600][url]http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/[/url][/QUOTE] Being singled out is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is beyond spooky. I know I talk crazy shit sometimes (all the time) but this seriously sketches me out. Let's put the people who legally own guns on a watch list - they won't be the first people to go. :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=Fort83;50602851]If you're truly a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, then you have nothing to worry about. Your precious guns aren't at risk unless you start committing crimes or are otherwise deemed unfit to own one.[/QUOTE] For all that people say that 'your precious guns aren't at risk' there's a whole lot of drum-beating from American liberals about an Australia-style buyback. 'Nobody's coming for your guns' is really, really unconvincing when it's followed by 'But if we could come for your guns, we would, and we should keep that option on the table. On a totally unrelated note, mind telling us what guns you have and where?'. Also, history shows that these lists are easily misused while offering little public health benefit. The map released to the public of all NYC permit holders, and the use of buy records after Hurricane Katrina to confiscate legally-owned firearms, are two prominent examples.

[QUOTE=Fort83;50602851]If you're truly a law-abiding citizen and gun owner, then you have nothing to worry about. Your precious guns aren't at risk unless you start committing crimes or are otherwise deemed unfit to own one. That said it might be for the best if they didn't call it a "criminal record database".[/QUOTE] Cops should be able to barge in and search your home for drugs. You don't have anything to fear if you're not doing anything illegal, right? Hell, I think they should also be able to sort through our emails, phone calls, internet history, and our hard drives. I mean, hey, as long as there's nothing illegal there, it's no big deal for you, right? See how dangerous the "as long as you obey the law you have nothing to worry about" drivel and the precedent it sets is? Not to mention having gun owners on an all inclusive database is literally a registry, something that always see to precede confiscation. Which is an even more blatant ignoring of the 2nd. But hey, it's someone elses rights, not yours, right? Why care?

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50604363]But hey, it's someone elses rights, not yours, right? Why care?[/QUOTE] Hey, it's not [I]his[/I] multi thousand dollar collection going into a furnace. Why should he care? Anything is worth a slight decrease [as long as it doesn't cost him anything]. If it was his livelihood, his hobby or his heirlooms on the chopping block, I'm sure he'd be all for a more delicate approach. But he doesn't stand to lose anything. Not his problem. Regulate them to death. I'm getting sick of gun grabber spew. There's so many ways to regulate firearms that cannot be abused to criminalize legal gun owners or deprive them of privacy or property, yet would still have a positive impact on the crime rate. But these people default to the first solution that enters their heads: a ban, since it's not their shit being banned. When that isn't possible, they switch to a marginally more subtle approach: regulate them out of existence, one arbitrary rule at a time. That requires a shopping list, so step 1 is always the registry. They aren't interested in a stimulating conversation with the people their miracle solutions actually affect, or learning the other side's viewpoint. They want to stifle with manipulated statistics and scream as loudly as possible to convince the ignorant to join them in railing against non-issues, since that's easier than contending with real issues but still lets them feel like they're fighting a Good Fight.

[QUOTE=Glaber;50601900]Well, that's going to make the state vote for Trump just to get rid of this.[/QUOTE] Not a chance. They're one of the bluest states in the union and Trump is very polarizing. They haven't gone red in a presidential election for over 30 years.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50602079]while this does go a bit far, saying that the founding fathers wanted to make sure we had access to weapons on account of these things currently happening is akin to saying darwin wanted access to knowledge of evolution so we could find out there are parallel universes. Every single time a thread like this pops up you are on here saying it infringes on the rights of the common american because of "What the founding fathers intended" but neglect to realise in 1775-76 they had access to cannon and musket, not assault rifles and semi-automatics. Truth is in nowhere did every single founding father say that everyone should have access to guns to violently overthrow their government based on tyranny. in fact that is the exact opposite of what they intended by a "peaceful revolution." as an added state/federal rights level, you consistently say that states should have more power over regulation in certain terms, but when it comes to the issue of guns and state's rights, it's suddenly a non-issue. Truth be told we cannot know what the founding fathers [I]intended[/I] but we can know what they didn't intend, and that is for massacres and mass shootings to happen on a nearly daily basis. To do nothing is a perversion on the tenants of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to do something, and issue of the "rights" of citizens.[/QUOTE] If government has heavily trained people with guns, tanks, fucking drones, you can't really peacefully overthrow government (if it gets heavily corrupt)

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50602560]The founding fathers merely guaranteed the right to bear them, it matters not how they function.[/QUOTE] As part of an organised militia. Why do people always omit that part.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;50604497]As part of an organised militia. Why do people always omit that part.[/QUOTE] A well-organized militia is important to the security of a free state, so [B]the people must be able to be armed[/B] in order to form such a thing when it's needed for a variety of reasons. This is the Supreme Court ruling on the matter. Not that you care.

it shouldn't be in the same database as criminals, but there should be a database. Like cars.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;50604497]As part of an organised militia. Why do people always omit that part.[/QUOTE] All male citizens are part of the militia, so it's rather irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Craigewan;50604497]As part of an organised militia. Why do people always omit that part.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html"]From the SCOTUS ruling in D.C. VS Heller[/URL] [QUOTE] 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Craigewan;50604497]As part of an organised militia. Why do people always omit that part.[/QUOTE] Ah yes the number one misinterpretation that anti-gun people always make sure to quote.

you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] Maybe if anti-gun people addressed the causes of violence and crime instead of the tools used by it, things would get somewhere.

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] except we've suggested solutions and all you guys do is dismiss them and go "not enough, must destroy gun" [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50599038]Here was my suggestion to control private gun sales without criminalizing trades among friends and family: Allow anyone access to the NICS. Don't require background checks on private transfers, but have the option there. If you run a background check on someone for a sale and they come up green, and then they commit a crime with that weapon, you are federally covered as you did everything in your power to make sure they were OK to receive the weapon. However, if you went with option B and didn't run a background check on them, and that weapon is then used in a crime and traced back to you (and it will be - investigators are very good at this), you will be held as an accomplice. So know who you're selling to if you don't want to run afoul of the law. Anti-gunners will probably decry this as "not enough!!!" but that's the kind of reasonable gun control we can institute. Couple it with enhanced background checks and [B]requiring the FBI to actually respond to them[/B] and you will see an improvement.[/QUOTE] here's a good first step pros: - discourages straw sales - discourages blind sales - discourages "gun show loophole" - establishes firm provenance for a firearm that is used in a crime - punishes private parties for negligent sales - catches more felons and such trying to buy guns illegally - doesn't create a shopping list for a ban - doesn't criminalize gun owners or treat them like bad guys - doesn't prevent private sales or safe trades among friends and family - doesn't destroy a bunch of property or historic items and heirlooms - stops the FBI from deliberately allowing criminals to purchase guns - begins to address actual issues rather than simply existing as a feelgood measure cons: - ???

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, I didn't know different nations had different people with wildly different gun laws. [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] That's what your post screams.

[QUOTE=General J;50604686]you guys are right clearly the current state of guns in the us is a non-issue and on par with other developed pro-gun 1st world countries of the world [IMG]http://orig08.deviantart.net/57da/f/2016/036/3/d/ok_hand_emoji_by_catstam-d9qkd2a.png[/IMG] [editline]27th June 2016[/editline] "I don't know what to do to fix it, but it's clearly not [I]this[/I]."[/QUOTE] I didn't know we had to be like all the other developed 1st world countries.

And now militia groups will openly target these buildings as they see them as the very thing they are afraid of. Good job, Hawaii.

This is so fucking stupid. What will this accomplish? How will this stop any crimes involving guns? "Oh look, this guy was on the fbi criminal record yet still managed to get shoot someone." Not only does this completely fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty and due process it completely proves the fucking stereotype of the regressive left.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50604857]And now militia groups will openly target these buildings as they see them as the very thing they are afraid of. Good job, Hawaii.[/QUOTE] You're saying this ironically, right?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50604924]You're saying this ironically, right?[/QUOTE] Half n' half. I highly doubt anyone is going to do anything, but this is probably going to make a few of the more nutty prepper and 3%ers piss themselves lol.