That's an advisory, not a law. They are asking for cooperation.

Right. And what happens when gun dealers are supposed to report bulk gun sales to the ATF? The NRA fights it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04guns.html?_r=0 It seems like if it were up to them, there would be no record keeping requirements, no requests for cooperation and no licensing at all.

Geez. People exercising thier rights to support NRA..............
And I'd think Farmers did the same on the fertilizer stuff.
:hmmm:
:roll:

Sometimes the NRA shoots itself in the foot; a number of years back, when California was considering new gun laws, a spokesman for the CA NRA chapter actually responded to a reporter's on-air question regarding gun sales to known mentally impaired persons with the assertion that the 2nd Amendment cover those individuals as well and they had every right to keep and bear arms. I'll never forget the stunned looks on the reporter's face and the faces of the news anchors when they cut back to the station...

<O>

Since the watch list is secret how are any gun dealers, or private sellers supposed to know? Catch 22. Heck, anyone could be on the watch list at any time, and for almost any reason. That's how you would disarm the citizens then. Just declare everyone on the watch list and start rounding the guns up. No need to explain why anyone is on the list either because it is secret.:stare:

Two points:

1:

The watch list is hardly secret. It is probably the worst kept secret in the entire "homeland security" apparatus. The number of agencies and individuals who have access to the list is quite large. Even if it were an "ultra top secret", when a check is done, the name submitted is checked against the list confidentially, just like at an airport, and, if found to be on the list, the sale would be prohibited. A background check for a firearm would work exactly the same as a check-in at an airport;

2.

The whole argument of "rounding the guns up" is logistically ridiculous. There are about 270, 000,000 privately held firearms in the U.S. They very idea of somehow going into every home and confiscating every gun is laughable. There are roughly 312,000,000 citizens in the US; of this number, roughly 234,000,000 are over 18 years of age. Any mass gun confiscation would require an armed force totally outside the realm of reason. There is also the cosideration the confiscation would have to be virtually simultaneous across the entire nation. You couldn't start with just a few states and fan out across the country; given the pervasive social media culture and the news media, in general, a stage-by-stage confiscation would be met with resistance before the first stage could be completed. The whole "they're coming for our guns" ploy is just that: a ploy to scare the gullible...

<O>

I am not a gun confiscation conspiracy guy. But your argument presumes that the confiscation would happen all at once. But it does not have to. It could start slowly, as in New York, with the express intention of NOT alarming all the citizens. You are right. A sudden general confiscation would be logistically problematic. But a sudden general confiscation is not the only scenario to be considered.

I am not for gun confiscation, either. I believe in responsible gun ownership. But I am appalled at how some of the gun advocates cheapen their arguments by resorting to laughably silly scenarios...

My argument is not that a confiscation would happen all at once; it is that in order for a gun confiscation to ever be rationally and realistically carried out, it would have to be in a mass fashion. If you started, as in your example, with NY state, the news of a confiscation effort would travel beyond those borders as fast as the news media, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, and any other form of instant communication could travel, i.e., the speed of light. The idea of a gradual, state-by-state, confiscation just can not be logically, rationally, nad logistically be accomoplished. Even withing the city of New York, a physical, armed presence would have to be of such a size, its very assembly would not pass unnoticed and forewarning would be expected to anyone owning a gun. Start in New York? You've got 49 other states forewarned and ready to resist...

As an example, consider a city riot. Here, in Los Angeles, we had a citywide riot in 1992 that lasted about 3 days. The LEOs were overwhelmed just in the first hours (although, much of that has to do with very poor planning and preparation for just such anb event by the LAPD leadership). The National Guard was called in on the second day. The actual numbers of violent rioters versus the total city population was actually quite small, but it took a lot of armed law and military personnel to regain order. These troops were very rarely fired upon by the rioters. Imagine if all the citzens who possessed firearms actively participated in the riot and took up arms against the police and NG...

The idea of the forcible confiscation of arms is just ludicrous. Do the math: the numbers just just don't pan out...

<O>

Please realize I wasn't advocating a round up, or expecting it to happen. I was responding to the use of the watch list to keep arms away from, well people being watched for lack of a better moniker. I don't like how rights can be revoked by just changing the labeling with the DHS magic wand. That smells of former eastern bloc tactics.

Anyway, I have no wish to derail the thread so will make any further argument in the gun superthread.

I have no clue why Gun stuff would be posted in this thread.
It was freaking BOMBS!
The gun play was later on and also does not concern the topic as started.
I hate being confused and you all are doing a GREAT job of doing that to me.

Well, our surviving bomber says they were motivated by religion, and they were not part of a terrorist group. They got the information to make bombs off the internet.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-religion?lite

My reaction to gun debates is OMFGWTFBBQ.

Hmm...............
BBQ!
:D

Because the thread is about the bomb attack and the perpetrators who according to the referred Reuters article in the NY Times didn't legally buy their guns. So it is related to the crime and part of the whole picture, but not to the extent of inviting long discussion over gun control.

A friend send me this on Facebook

I can't say if it's a fake story or not.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/22/s...zech-republic/

I can see that it's a satirical newspaper

Markus