ATF scandal used as a pretext for National Gun Registration

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Diane Feinstein is out to use this idiotic gun scandal as the justification for a National Gun Registry. This was the real motive of the whole scandal.



    Feinstein Uses 'Fast and Furious' to Make Case for National Gun Registration
    Making a case for national gun registration, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said “perhaps mistakes were made” in the botched gun-walking program known as Fast and Furious, but she said trying to assign blame misses the larger problem. “This is a deep concern for me. I know others disagree, but we have very lax laws when it comes to guns,” Feinstein, an advocate of gun control, said during Tuesday's hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism.
    “My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that there’s been a lot said about Fast and Furious, and perhaps mistakes were made,” Feinstein said. “But I think this hunt for blame doesn’t really speak about the problem. And the problem is, anybody can walk in and buy anything.”

    Feinstein may have inadvertently confirmed Gunwalker ulterior motive
    Not only did Feinstein immediately jump into the subject of gun control, but she repeated the very falsehood the Administration used from the beginning to justify its illegal operation in the Gunwalker scheme--that the vast majority of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    39,061
    113
    Uranus
    They just can't wait to get the boot on our neck.

    I think she jumped the gun. (no pun intended.... ok maybe a small one.)

    The safer they feel in power the more they let slip their true agenda.
     

    flatlander

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    May 30, 2009
    4,224
    113
    Noblesville
    Mark this day on the calender. I agreed 100% with rambone!!! He hit the nail on the head. The whole point of the exercise was to provide more "proof" so they can initiate more laws to take away the RIGHTS provided to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Bob
     

    Gun Bunny

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 8, 2011
    84
    6
    I looked on the Brady web site to see what they had to say about F&F, basically the same bull**** she said. Not the Governments fault, but our gun-laws!

    I wonder why when they ask about the number of guns traced back to the U.S., they don't ask just how many can be traced to retail shops? In the late 70s and most of the 80s, we and Russia sent boat loads of weapons to Central America! You think our border with Mexico is easy to cross? Just think how easy it is to come into southern Mexico!

    As I have said before in other posts, F&F was to boost the numbers to gain support for more gun control, period! And it comes from the top! We most likely will never see proof that it goes all the way up, but I feel strongly that it does!
     

    GBuck

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    55   0   0
    Jul 18, 2011
    20,201
    48
    Franklin
    Mark this day on the calender. I agreed 100% with rambone!!! He hit the nail on the head. The whole point of the exercise was to provide more "proof" so they can initiate more laws to take away the RIGHTS provided to us by GOD (whatever that may be to you).

    Bob
    FTFY :D
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,638
    149
    No big secret here. This has been the theory all along that Gunwalker and F&F were an attempt to provide the spark to call for more gun legislation.
     

    gunowner930

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 25, 2010
    1,859
    38
    Why not pass registration anyway? The Feds created this mess and it blew up in their faces, yet Obama still passes multiple sales reporting by royal decree because of fast and furious.
     

    NYFelon

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 1, 2011
    3,146
    36
    DPRNY
    lol. Lax gun laws. How many of you lawful gun owners on this site would agree? I would venture to say probably not many. Certainly in comparison to states like NY, MA, CT, or CA your laws are less stringent, but I wouldn't say gun laws are lax anywhere. Especially considering the nation was founded around the right of all citizens to be armed.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    lol. Lax gun laws. How many of you lawful gun owners on this site would agree? I would venture to say probably not many. Certainly in comparison to states like NY, MA, CT, or CA your laws are less stringent, but I wouldn't say gun laws are lax anywhere. Especially considering the nation was founded around the right of all citizens to be armed.

    Years ago, someone told me that the #2 highest-regulated industry in America was convalescent care, specifically nursing homes, second only to nuclear power.

    I don't know how many laws there are regulating either of those, but I do know that there are in excess of 20,000 gun laws on the books in this country.

    Lax gun laws? Only if your goal is to wholly deny them to anyone not wearing a military or police uniform (and of course, the criminals who don't obey laws) and in the process, use the Constitution, the foundation of this country, as toilet paper.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    MTC

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 14, 2009
    1,356
    38
    lol. Lax gun laws. How many of you lawful gun owners on this site would agree?
    As expected from
    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
    -- Fineswine (D-CA)

    Failing that, though, they'll reluctantly settle for any kind of licensing and registration laws they can get (or that already exist), of guns or gun owners. Anything to harass, impede, violate or infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
     
    Last edited:

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,051
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    And the problem is, anybody can walk in and buy anything.

    Well, if by "anyone", Senator, you mean ATF and FBI informants who gun dealers wanted to stop from buying but were told by your employees to allow the sales, then yes "anyone" can buy anything.

    Oh, and I'm not counting the direct transfers of firearms and grenades that .gov gave to the Pacific cartel.
     

    Lead Head

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 25, 2011
    427
    16
    Northeast Indiana
    lol. Lax gun laws. How many of you lawful gun owners on this site would agree? I would venture to say probably not many. Certainly in comparison to states like NY, MA, CT, or CA your laws are less stringent, but I wouldn't say gun laws are lax anywhere. Especially considering the nation was founded around the right of all citizens to be armed.

    The above comment really gets to the heart of the matter. Of course I need to use a few more words to further the point. :D

    If by a modern law outside of the Original Framework some of us still call the "Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution" simply requiring by modern law to register a gun with a state or federal database is in fact, unconstitutional. We are already faced with this restriction and it is one way of blocking or at least slowing down gun ownership. I agree that some people like whack-a-doodles, etc. are better off not owning a gun but even that smacks of a breach in the Second Amendment.

    "Especially considering the nation was founded around the right of all citizens to be armed." Outstanding !

    I say it should be a requirement of every adult citizen (not whack-a-doodles) to own and pass a basic gun training course similar to getting a drivers license. A trigger lock would be sold with every gun just like they are now.

    A drivers license is a privilege and car ownership is an option. Gun ownership is a right and unless you have your head in the sand, it should be requirement. If everyone is armed and trained, criminals would for the first time in history think very, very hard before having a dumbassattack. Remember, some criminals wear suits and some of those "suits" don't like the US Citizens to have guns because is eats away at their power. Figuring out who is the criminal is getting harder and harder.

    Concealed Carry would be an advanced course and an option for now, but any restriction is a slippery slope and that is where we find ourselves today.

    A gun registry was almost passed in the Land of Lincoln (Ill-e-noise) and the bottom of half of that state would gladly secede from the Peoples Republic of Chicago for this and many other reasons. The FOID card from Illinois is a total Constitutional kick to the groin and is required for gun ownership and gun purchases. That my INGO friends IS unconstitutional.

    None of this is new info to the INGO crowd but this is where things could be headed. The dumb-o-crats will keep trying to find a back door into more gun control until owning a semi-auto becomes like applying for a Class III full-auto weapon.

    I sometimes think we see it backwards. We should be freely encouraged to own guns for the simple purpose of honoring our Founding Fathers. This is what they wanted and they made sure it was in writing so in honor of them, I'm going to buy a new gun. :patriot:
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    The above comment really gets to the heart of the matter. Of course I need to use a few more words to further the point. :D

    If by a modern law outside of the Original Framework some of us still call the "Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution" simply requiring by modern law to register a gun with a state or federal database is in fact, unconstitutional. We are already faced with this restriction and it is one way of blocking or at least slowing down gun ownership. I agree that some people like whack-a-doodles, etc. are better off not owning a gun but even that smacks of a breach in the Second Amendment.

    "Especially considering the nation was founded around the right of all citizens to be armed." Outstanding !

    I say it should be a requirement of every adult citizen (not whack-a-doodles) to own and pass a basic gun training course similar to getting a drivers license. A trigger lock would be sold with every gun just like they are now.

    A drivers license is a privilege and car ownership is an option. Gun ownership is a right and unless you have your head in the sand, it should be requirement. If everyone is armed and trained, criminals would for the first time in history think very, very hard before having a dumbassattack. Remember, some criminals wear suits and some of those "suits" don't like the US Citizens to have guns because is eats away at their power. Figuring out who is the criminal is getting harder and harder.

    Concealed Carry would be an advanced course and an option for now, but any restriction is a slippery slope and that is where we find ourselves today.

    A gun registry was almost passed in the Land of Lincoln (Ill-e-noise) and the bottom of half of that state would gladly secede from the Peoples Republic of Chicago for this and many other reasons. The FOID card from Illinois is a total Constitutional kick to the groin and is required for gun ownership and gun purchases. That my INGO friends IS unconstitutional.

    None of this is new info to the INGO crowd but this is where things could be headed. The dumb-o-crats will keep trying to find a back door into more gun control until owning a semi-auto becomes like applying for a Class III full-auto weapon.

    I sometimes think we see it backwards. We should be freely encouraged to own guns for the simple purpose of honoring our Founding Fathers. This is what they wanted and they made sure it was in writing so in honor of them, I'm going to buy a new gun. :patriot:

    What penalty would you impose upon those who choose not to comply with the requirement you cite as an appropriate goal? By what means would you control what the content of the "basic gun training course" or the "concealed carry" course was? That is, how would you prevent them from being made incrementally difficult such that eventually, even Jerry Miculek would have difficulty passing them?

    People being responsible for themselves is good. People being trained in the safe handling of firearms is also good. People being required in some way to do either one restricts freedom.... that is, if someone chooses to disregard all facts and common sense and responsibility for him- or herself, he or she should bear the consequences of that choice, be helpless, and be able to fall victim to his or her own bad choices.

    Don't misunderstand me. I think I see where you're coming from. I also see, though, that you're on the one hand saying that there should be no restrictions on the good people, and on the other (if your will were law), you'd be imposing them yourself.

    Am I reading you incorrectly? Please clarify if so, and if I'm mistaken, kindly accept my apology.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,051
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    What penalty would you impose upon those who choose not to comply with the requirement you cite as an appropriate goal?

    Forfeiture of the right to vote and a fine equivalent to double the cost of a service rifle and support gear to the CMP to fund rifles for others since they are going to carry your pack for you. Further, if you chose not to participate you are required to work in the target pits certain number of weekends per year to help others.

    I see no problem Constitutionally or morally making gun ownership a duty as it was originally. It needs to start in public schools . . . but that's another thread.
     
    Top Bottom