HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » How would gun control non...

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 05:53 PM

How would gun control non-compliance be enforced?

Suppose the Controllers got their fantasy of an Australian style requirement to surrender firearms in exchange for a stipend but the program produced substantially low turn-ins, i.e. registration laws currently show less than 5% compliance.

How should the authorities deal with non-compliance?

A) Overlook it. We don't need another War on X.

B) Wait until the owners do something otherwise lawful like, self defense, then prosecute them.

C) Compile records from background checks, FOIDs and registries to actively find the offenders

D) Other

19 replies, 3104 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply How would gun control non-compliance be enforced? (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 OP
Lurks Often Jul 2015 #1
Post removed Jul 2015 #2
lastlib Jul 2015 #3
virginia mountainman Jul 2015 #4
lastlib Jul 2015 #13
oneshooter Jul 2015 #14
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #15
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #16
lastlib Jul 2015 #17
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #18
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2015 #19
bravenak Jul 2015 #5
beam me up scottie Jul 2015 #6
Little Star Jul 2015 #7
beam me up scottie Jul 2015 #11
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #8
beam me up scottie Jul 2015 #12
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #9
Eleanors38 Jul 2015 #10

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:49 PM

1. The bigger question, what happens when the authorities WON'T enforce the law?

 

or when states won't enforce the laws and won't allow the Federal government to enforce the laws?

We are already seeing states pushing back against the Federal government for different reasons, be it marijuana or guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #2)


Response to lastlib (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:10 AM

4. Yep.. a few "enforcers" getting shot...

Would make a good one. Making examples can cut both ways. Most people don't want to die for a job, but many would be willing to stand up for thier civil liberties... Becareful what you wish for you just may get it. When you have abut 5% compliance in new york state.. the lawbreakers far and away out number those that would enforce the law..

Not to mention the fact that most law enforcement are against the recently passed gun control in the first place

People that belive that they are defending their rights tend too be willing to make final stands..

(I hate posting from my phone)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:11 PM

13. So-o-oooo......whatever happened to the "law-abiding gun owners" thingy?

just a bad attempt at a joke by the gun-humpers? .

(just askin'.......................)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:47 PM

14. So you decided to come back.

After leaving in a snit last time. And saying you were tired of playing "our game" and would never post here again. Hoplophobe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 07:27 AM

15. Does the fact they refuse to abide by a law simply because it is a law make them bad?

What are we then supposed to think about pot smokers, those who scoffed at Prohibition and those who refused to comply with segregation?

Putting words on paper doesn't entitle the state to civil obedience. If the entire notion of "consent of the governed" holds any value than the fact a law meets with such rampant disregard informs us that the law does not serve the people but rather the people are being expected to serve the law -- without their consent.

In a democracy who should the weight of power and deference belong to? The people or the state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:59 PM

16. Your awkward questions will probably not be answered, and if by some chance they are...

 

...expect a whole lot of:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:54 PM

17. Yeah-h-h-hhhh--if they KILLING people.......SHEEESHHHH!

If their Elected Representatives enact it, then they have given consent. That's what a *Democratic Republic* is all about! (Or did you sleep through that in grade school Civics?) If people feel it's unjust, they may fight it by civil means, but that DOESN'T mean killing the enforcers.

The blood-lust of the gun-humper crowd sometimes just floors me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:03 PM

18. "If their Elected Representatives enact it, then they have given consent."

 

In your opinion, does that mean that *all* laws must be, if not obeyed, at least
defied by peaceable means?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #17)

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:16 PM

19. You're the only one suggesting killing.

All the examples of civil disobedience and non-compliance that I cited were non-violent.

Far too many Controllers, however, fantasize about SWAT-ting people or cheering acts of aggression or having gun control settled by a contest of arms.

Perhaps you would like to offer an answer to the OP. How would you see non-compliance with a registration requirement or mandatory buy-back dealt with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:10 AM

5. Sorry to put this here, but I wanted to post the results.

 

On Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Send in people with guns to take guns....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=171458

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Mow down" "undesirables" like Christians and Republicans? Really? "Way, Harmony, Spirit...the art of peace is within" my arse.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:07 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide it. Advocating mass murder, really? If it was intended as sarcasm, it does not come off that way.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: eminently hideable post.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the fuck is this? I'm about to go Godwin here in a minute. Dude, you sound kinda like a na..
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ugly post.. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the poster forgot the sarcasm smilie. I did a search and they are on the pro side of the DU gunz wars.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:11 AM

6. Jury results for hidden post:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Send in people with guns to take guns....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=171458

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Mow down" "undesirables" like Christians and Republicans? Really? "Way, Harmony, Spirit...the art of peace is within" my arse.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:07 PM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide it. Advocating mass murder, really? If it was intended as sarcasm, it does not come off that way.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: eminently hideable post.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the fuck is this? I'm about to go Godwin here in a minute. Dude, you sound kinda like a na..
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Ugly post.. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the poster forgot the sarcasm smilie. I did a search and they are on the pro side of the DU gunz wars.


I was #7. I'm sorry, ileus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 09:54 AM

7. I think Juror #7 should do another search...

because my search showed:
"guns kill way less than 30k...somewhere in the 0-none range.
And of course as we all know most firearms sold today are designed to save lives.
Some for collecting.
Some for competition.
Some for hunting."

I doubt ileus wanted a sarcasm smilie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Little Star (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 04:18 PM

11. Sorry but #7 knows how people game the jury system by lying in alerts to get posts hidden.

Now the alerter could very well have believed that ileus was advocating for the murder of gun owners but they could also be an anti-gun DUer who wanted to score a hide for their "team".

This happens frequently in some highly contentious sub-groups and it's been tried on me personally.

So I decided to research ileus' posts before I voted to hide this one and imo, their only mistake was not using the sarcasm smilie.

Why do you care so much about this verdict anyway, are you the alerter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #6)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 03:10 PM

8. Watch out, folks. You know the drill. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 04:21 PM

12. I've been sent jury results where the alerter intentionally lied about my post to get a hide.

Fortunately they failed to score one in my case and got a 24 break from alerting for their trouble.

Not saying that's what happened in this instance but people who lie in order to get posts hidden make DU suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 03:13 PM

9. Maybe it's happened in Australia. Isn't the amount of confiscation much lower than expected?

 

I.E., most guns are still out there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Tue Jul 14, 2015, 03:18 PM

10. Some controller extremists want license/registration lists public, like sex offender registries.

 

Perhaps this dovetails with the penis-orientation which suffuses their other "arguments."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread