It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bought a Gun, Got a Letter from the Attorney General

page: 8
65
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   


I'm not reading any threats in that letter. I read it as they are reminding you to use your gun responsibly and if you want to sell it or transfer ownership of for any reason, that there are certain procedures or regulations that need to be followed for that transfer to take place. I know that you already had to take a test on all that stuff but isn't it everyone's best interest to make sure that new gun owners are reminded one more time? You can read it as a threat but I honestly don't see it that way. What good would it do to threaten anyway?
reply to post by acuna
 


Again, I said intimidate not threaten, there is a difference between the two words. The harm is that younger generations are being taught in public schools and by the media that guns are bad and anyone who owns a gun is a criminal, this letter reinforces that mentality by pointing out all the ways in which a legal gun owner can be prosecuted. It has zero impact on public safety.




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 





You would read that because your paranoid.



Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.





posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by acuna
I'm really not seeing the big deal here. Ok you had to wait 10 days for your federal background check, that's kind of important to make sure that felons and crazy people don't get their hands on guns in the first place. The atty gen of California knew that you had purchased a gun 2 days after? So what? That just shows that for once a government system is actually working efficiently. Are you really worried about your name being on a list of registered gun owners? Why because you're afraid a list of gun owner is being made just so they can take everyone's guns? That make absolutely no sense whatsoever. (Hey let's let everyone buy something just so we can take it away?)

There's no way the government, state or federal, can nullify the 2nd amendment. How would they go about taking everyone's guns? House to house? Imagine the riots that would cause. Is the national guard and police or maybe even the military prepared to shoot to kill American citizens? Logically it would be a nightmare.

That letter is just a reminder of your responsibilities. Yeah I know guns don't kill people but, guns are inherently more dangerous than knives, or baseball bats. With a gun you can injure or kill someone that's 100s of feet away, bats and knives not so much.

It seems like people are ready to freak out at any type of effort to safeguard against gun violence. I own several guns and I wholeheartedly support universal background checks. If you're an average law abiding citizen you won't have any problems. And as far as my name being on a list of registered gun owners I really couldn't care less. People need to stop being so paranoid

Both sides of the gun debate need to chill the hell out. The rhetoric and freaking out is getting ridiculous
edit on 16-4-2013 by acuna because: oops


Think again bro.... www.theblaze.com...

dcclothesline.com...

www.ammoland.com...

"These rights shall not be infringed" ANYTHING to do with gun control or registering guns is infringement!

You use a gun to commit a crime then you should pay for it not be slapped on the hand and let go to commit another crime. Law abiding people should be able to own and defend themselves with guns not be treated as criminals. Criminals don't register guns. Criminals don't follow "laws". Put the criminals away for a long time and watch the crime rate go down. Putting your name in a database is just a way for the government to take your guns or tax you on them.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Xaphan
 


Guns are designed and intended and used to kill(or at least seriously injure) people. None of those other things are. Most people don't buy cars to kill people. Guns are made to cause damage and that is the only reason why someone would purchase one.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Metha-Don
 


Those criminals that don't care about the laws are still subject to them when caught. This does happen sometimes. Having stricter laws on guns will cause the criminals that get caught to have more serious consequences. All the political stuff aside, it kind of makes sense. No criminal cares about the laws they break right? so why have any laws?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by nateman
 





Guns are designed and intended and used to kill(or at least seriously injure) people. None of those other things are. Most people don't buy cars to kill people. Guns are made to cause damage and that is the only reason why someone would purchase one.


Law abiding citizens don't purchase guns to cause damage, they do so to protect themselves and their loved ones from damage...and to punch holes in paper.

I never intend to use my gun to kill anyone or anything, even though it can and was designed to do so. Ferrari's and Lamborghinis were designed to race on tracks, yet I see plenty of them driving around L.A.
edit on 17-4-2013 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nateman
 





No criminal cares about the laws they break right? so why have any laws?


To quote Bryce Harper, "clown question bro'". A problem here in California is that the prisons are so overcrowded that we are constantly letting violent offenders go free, which is all the more reason to have a firearm handy.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   


let's see....food market for the nation, clean air, almost a balanced budget (Texas in the hole by approx. 20b), san Francisco giants world series winners, 49'ers in super bowl, deserts, ski slopes, ocean, no hurricanes, no tornados, no BP spills, no humidity, no blizzards, no "sandy" storms, no major floods........yeah....it's a bitch living here...please stay away

Great Post. I never made it that far west sorry to say. I have always wondered what land goes for an acre in the San Joaquin Valley. Rich farm land here list about $5,000 an acre.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SSFlorida
 


Ok so NY state is trying a limited gun confiscation program. It looks like the subject are those who have been diagnosed with a psychological condition and are possibly dangerous. Aren't we trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who would be considered dangerous?



"These rights shall not be infringed" ANYTHING to do with gun control or registering guns is infringement!


I have to disagree with here. You forget the line "a well regulated militia". If there are no controls over what guns we can own then can we own any type of firearm? RPGs, bazookas? The framers of the Bill of Rights clearly didn't think we'd have fully automatic weapons, they had muskets back then.




You use a gun to commit a crime then you should pay for it not be slapped on the hand and let go to commit another crime. Law abiding people should be able to own and defend themselves with guns not be treated as criminals....


I agree with you here




...Criminals don't register guns. Criminals don't follow "laws". Put the criminals away for a long time and watch the crime rate go down. Putting your name in a database is just a way for the government to take your guns or tax you on them.


Yes criminal don't register their guns and do not follow laws. We already have stiff penalties for those who use unregistered guns and crime rates haven't really changed too much.

The US has a ton of gun violence and it's not all due to unregistered guns. Whatever the gov't can do to help police, FBI etc to solve crimes that involve guns they should do. It's not a road to confiscation. That's seems like a paranoid fallacy



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by SSFlorida
 


Ok so NY state is trying a limited gun confiscation program. It looks like the subject are those who have been diagnosed with a psychological condition and are possibly dangerous. Aren't we trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who would be considered dangerous?



"These rights shall not be infringed" ANYTHING to do with gun control or registering guns is infringement!


I have to disagree with here. You forget the line "a well regulated militia". If there are no controls over what guns we can own then can we own any type of firearm? RPGs, bazookas? The framers of the Bill of Rights clearly didn't think we'd have fully automatic weapons, they had muskets back then.




You use a gun to commit a crime then you should pay for it not be slapped on the hand and let go to commit another crime. Law abiding people should be able to own and defend themselves with guns not be treated as criminals....


I agree with you here




...Criminals don't register guns. Criminals don't follow "laws". Put the criminals away for a long time and watch the crime rate go down. Putting your name in a database is just a way for the government to take your guns or tax you on them.


Yes criminal don't register their guns and do not follow laws. We already have stiff penalties for those who use unregistered guns and crime rates haven't really changed too much.

The US has a ton of gun violence and it's not all due to unregistered guns. Whatever the gov't can do to help police, FBI etc to solve crimes that involve guns they should do. It's not a road to confiscation. That's seems like a paranoid fallacy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----!
"Ok so NY state is trying a limited gun confiscation program. It looks like the subject are those who have been diagnosed with a psychological condition and are possibly dangerous. Aren't we trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who would be considered dangerous?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!

Christians and even Ron Paul are considered "terrorists" so your logic of a "a limited gun confiscation program" does not hold water. If you read the news regular people who have gotten any drug to calm themselves or try to go to sleep are being targeted. Next it will be the Christians and Ron Paul followers..
_____________________________________________________________________________!
I have to disagree with here. You forget the line "a well regulated militia". If there are no controls over what guns we can own then can we own any type of firearm? RPGs, bazookas? The framers of the Bill of Rights clearly didn't think we'd have fully automatic weapons, they had muskets back then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ !
To place laws on ANY weapon is unconstitutional and IF you let them get away with one law there will be many others. There are already laws against FULLY automatic weapons so let's not go there..The laws on the books are not working so why add more? Why not just use the laws we have and stop the gun violence where it starts? An 18 year old kid shot 2 other kids in Il. who has the strictest gun laws in the nation. He got 10 years and was let out in 2.5 years and killed someone else. Now tell me what laws should be changed...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!< br />
"The US has a ton of gun violence and it's not all due to unregistered guns. Whatever the gov't can do to help police, FBI etc to solve crimes that involve guns they should do. It's not a road to confiscation. That's seems like a paranoid fallacy"

_____________________________________________________________________________________!

What ever they can do? They don't do crap now so why pass even more laws that hurt law abiding people? Chicago has the toughest laws on the books but yet gangs kill people everyday and get light sentences for their actions. Maybe putting them away for 20 years would do more good then any new gun laws. You will get a longer prison sentience for tax evasion than for shooting someone.

I own guns and never would use one unless my life was threatend. I fought in Nam and saw what guns do. I wish there was a way people who should not have guns couldn't get them but that will never be the case no matter how many laws you enact. Also, the FBI isn't your friend or protector. they are the enemy.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I see nothing wrong with the letter itself, but a take a test before you can buy a gun is taking it too far. I remember growing up in West Virginia and having to attend a gun safety class before I could get a hunting license; which I thought was a good idea. But I did not have to take a test; only simply attend the one week class.

These days I do not live in the states but I am still a US citizen so I have a unbreakable connection to the US. I grew up on guns. I never once thought about using a firearm to hurt anyone. Guns were fun and highly enjoyable. I remember going on hunting trips with the men in my family and we had a great time. We also would go target shooting and I would be lectured on American history and how having a gun protected you from the government and allowed you to provide for yourself by way of hunting.

Reducing gun violence is all about education but attempting to scare gun buyers with tests and little `friendly reminder` letters is clearly the wrong way to go. If the common people understand that having a gun comes with knowing how to use one, how to clean and store one and the intention of the population being able to have guns; gun violence will surely reduce.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
It is just part of the national registry. They will have it passed eventually i think.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
California Gun Confiscation Bill Passes, Approves $24 Million To Expedite Illegal Gun Seizure

www.huffingtonpost.com...

No, they would never come after your guns.... Keep dreaming.... If you live in Ca, Ny, or CT be prepared for the knock on the door....



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SSFlorida


Christians and even Ron Paul are considered "terrorists" so your logic of a "a limited gun confiscation program" does not hold water. If you read the news regular people who have gotten any drug to calm themselves or try to go to sleep are being targeted. Next it will be the Christians and Ron Paul followers.. ____________________

 


You are probably referring to a pamphlet that was released independently by someone in the Army but not endorsed by the Army. One person, their opinion and that's it. Show me where average everyday people are being told to give up their arms because they are on certain medications. Outside of certain anti-psycotics I really don't see a problem.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join