It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


New Law Would Require Finger Printing For Any New Gun Purchase

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I just do not see how fingerprinting will prevent lunatics from attacking people.

Am I missing something here??? It just doesn’t seem to help the problem.

I dont know about you, but I feel all safer already.

Its not going to prevent anything. They dont even enforce the laws we have concerning guns. Once again, this was never about the tragedy at Sandy Hook or trying to prevent more harm to our children. These dead kids were used by the govt to stir up emotion and populate their database of firearm owners. Wonder if anyone has figured that out yet....
Nope, they havent yet. So where is the outrage over the kids' deaths being used for .. no real move to protect the children or the public at large from nutballs that shoot up innocent citizens?? What about the inner city klids being mowed down daily by illegal guns.. fingerprints will help this too?? I wont hold my breath for this righteous indignation they spew concerning everything else BUT the real issues.

God I hate politicians, political bs... and those who buy into it make me want to puke.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by BlowinSmoke
The more you tell people not to do something, the more ways they'll find to get them things done. That's the way of the streets and that will never change. How will they stop the black market? The same way they do with drugs?

unfortunately you may be right.

Since the government is the biggest importer of illegal drugs you can bet that they will be the biggest importer of illegal weapons at some point.

Why is there never a bill introduced down there that would put the prison system back in public hands? This punishment for profit system you all got seems like poison. And it is giving Harper ideas, he actually proposed a private prison system here too.

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by FirstCasualty

No it would not, sadly the under ground gun traffic will make it more profitable to import foreign arms from across the border than exporting American ones without any DNA transfer devices.

Think people think, criminals do not have to abide by any laws.

No criminals wont abide by the law, but at least that way the police can start enforcing the laws without worrying about trampling on constitutional rights.

It will be much more clear to the police about the guns owner and illegal weapons would be easier to detect since they are characteristically quite different from legal weapons. No more powerful but clearly different. The rest is up to the citizens to report illegal gun use. Don't worry though your armed legally and have nothing to worry about as long as you stay that way.

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by superman2012

Sure, James Bond's Q is working on it....and it will be very expensive technology.

That would make it impossible for the average Joe to afford.

It won't matter if it's expensive if the gun manufacturers have to have it...or are you rolling your eyes because the technology isn't being used in this fashion yet? You do know that technological advances happen right? We haven't been stagnant for quite some time.

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:26 AM
reply to post by marg6043

...but it sure would help the lawful owners right? There is no way to stop criminals. For every law you can name, I would be able to find a way around it...and I'm not a criminal.

Edit: Plus, it sure would make the lawful owners abide to the laws...knowing that they would be implicated in a crime.
edit on 15-1-2013 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:28 AM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Americans talk smack about Canada all the time, in particular your health care system as I'm sure you've noticed. But regardless of that, of course your input on the subject is valued. "Outside" perspectives are sometimes the clearest. That you feel the need to apologize for it actually riles me up more than the whole fingerprinting thing.

But maybe that's because this whole gun control thing has become exasperating. We know what they're up to and the lines have pretty much been drawn. I want no part of whatever "is coming". On either side.

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Signals
Fingerprinting is what you do to CRIMINALS.

Law abiding gun owners are not criminals.

Shall not be infringed - Why is this phrase so hard to understand?
edit on 14-1-2013 by Signals because: (no reason given)

Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should 'Cower' in Shame Like Smokers - 1995 footage

Read more:

Eric Holder: Gun Runner to Mexican Drug Cartels

edit on 1/15/2013 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
Every weapon should have a finger print and ID attached to it. Every weapon should be accounted for and every owner should be held criminally responsible for its actions.

You lose a gun and didn't notice... to bad. we will talk about it in 5 years during your parole hearing (or probation here in Canada:roll

Guns are NOT pokey man cards. Its a serious deal when they get in the hands of the wrong people and the laws should reflect accordingly.
edit on 14-1-2013 by FirstCasualty because: I accidently said guns were pokey man cards... forgot the NOT.

Hate to tell you this but they just can the long gun registry here
What now
it did not word

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:56 AM
Fingerprints can always be "modified". I've been thinking of getting rid of mine all together.

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:37 AM
reply to post by Trillium

Yes they finally realized what a four year old knew. Criminals are more likely to use handguns, not hunting rifles.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in