Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gun Registration: Why Such A Huge Objection?  
User currently offlineNorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1832 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4091 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The question is self evident.

When we have to register our cars, houses, boats, planes and other objects, why are Second Amendment Advocates pitching such a huge fit about registering firearms?

The reason not to object would seem to be a no brainer, it allows law enforcement to be aware of what guns any particular individual owns so that when they respond to that Domestic Violence call in the middle of the night the officer will know what to expect and can respond accordingly.

So, tell me, why object? What's the big deal about having to inform the police how many guns you own, what type weapons you own and their status: Secured, unsecured, operative, inoperative.


Why are people so against low yields?! If lower yields means more people can travel abroad, i'm all for it
245 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4096 times:

People have been brainwashed into believing that registration is the first step towards confiscation and that they can only defend themselves from tyranny if they have their own private arsenals. It is neither a rational line of thought nor supported by facts, but nevertheless it exists.

[Edited 2013-03-06 02:05:09]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):

While this is true, I think there's a little more to it than that...

Simply put, Americans don't like being told what to do. Even when the benefits and indeed (in this case) the necessity are present. We have a tendency to conflate ideals of freedom with the complete disposal of responsibility. This isn't the first time in our history that we've resisted doing the sensible or right thing on the basis of "well, we've never had to do this before, and I don't have a problem, so why should I comply with this..." Hell, one time we had to fight a whole damned war, within our own borders no less, just to wean some of people off the habit of owning other people. The issue is different, but the logic is the same. No matter obviously beneficial something is, it's always automatically bad if it's the gov't doing the fixing.

I think eventually this will pass, along with successively more restrictive measures as time goes by. But in the meantime, the rest of us sure will hear about it and have to endure...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Thread starter):
The reason not to object would seem to be a no brainer, it allows law enforcement to be aware of what guns any particular individual owns so that when they respond to that Domestic Violence call in the middle of the night the officer will know what to expect and can respond accordingly

If a law enforcement officers sees that nobody owns a gun at a residence and then proceeds to the call as if there will be no guns he/she is acting very stupidly. Who knows who is actually there and what they have, legal or not. A police officer comes on to a scene like that expecting the worst.

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
People have been brainwashed into believing that registration is the first step towards confiscation and that they can only defend themselves from tyranny if they have their own private arsenals.

The only reason the government needs to know if you have something is to tax it or take it. I tend to think they would tax guns. They tax the hell out of everything to begin with. My cars are registered with the government, they are taxed, my home is registered with the government, it is taxed. Boats, campers, airplanes, snow mobiles, etc, are registered by the government and are private property, they are all taxed. I would see no reason why the government wouldn't tax guns too.

The only problem is that people assume that everyone will register their guns. They all will not, I will not (at least all of them). Some of my guns go back in my family far enough there are, and never was, and record of purchase. How will government insure compliance? Will they go to every home and business in the USA and search it to be sure there is no gun? The civil right and civil liberties groups will have a fit. Those are on the far left and the far right tend to love their freedom and will not let government search and seize without a warrant.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4037 times:

To put into perspective:

Germany has recently completed a federal register of privately held guns (before it was a state matter, with no federal coordination). There are a bit more than 5 million legally registered guns in private hands in Germany (I don´t remember the exact figure), but the head of the Bundeskriminalamt (the approximate equivalent of the FBI in Germany, though with less powers) had stated that his department estimates that there are about 20 million illegal and unregistered guns around over here.

Jan


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

OK...Consider this. Lets just say you own Gun Type "A". Somewhere within a 20 mile radius someone has recently murdered another with....with (Gun Type A). Lets assume that everyone within that 20 mile radius, prior to the murder registered their (Gun Type A). Lets again assume maybe 35 gun owners have this (Gun Type A). Wouldn't you think that since you are now in a system that has mapped out all the 35 owners of (Gun Type A) that they all will automatically be flagged as potential criminals? You have now availed yourself to a bad day.

I do believe that no one can really justify the owning of an assault rifle for personal use, I also beleive the surrendering of constitutional rights can be equally as dangerous.


User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12110 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IMHO no solution is going to be perfect, though that doesn't mean we stop trying. And that right there is what I see as going to happen. The NRA will keep knocking down any change in hopes the public gives up the fight.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4002 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 5):
I also beleive the surrendering of constitutional rights can be equally as dangerous

Well.. How do you feel about Voter Registration?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3984 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 5):
OK...Consider this. Lets just say you own Gun Type "A". Somewhere within a 20 mile radius someone has recently murdered another with....with (Gun Type A). Lets assume that everyone within that 20 mile radius, prior to the murder registered their (Gun Type A). Lets again assume maybe 35 gun owners have this (Gun Type A). Wouldn't you think that since you are now in a system that has mapped out all the 35 owners of (Gun Type A) that they all will automatically be flagged as potential criminals? You have now availed yourself to a bad day.

Perhaps though this will lead to a greater ability to solve murder crimes which could result in a lower homicide rate and the inconvenience of being a suspect, or indeed, dying, will be reduced.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3973 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 5):

I posted a fictional dialogue in another thread a while back.

LEO: Mr. Fr8mech? Good day.
Fr8mech: Good day.
LEO: Mr. Fr8mech, last night a crime was committed in downtown Louisville (18 miles away) and a .40 caliber bullet was recovered. According to registration data, you have a .40 caliber Springfield XD40 sub-compact registered in your name. Is this correct?
Fr8mech: Yes.
LEO: Please account for your firearm and your whereabouts during yesterday during the time the crime was committed. Also, we will need to impound your firearm in order to perform ballistics testing.

I was assured that it would never happen that way.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 3):
The only reason the government needs to know if you have something is to tax it or take it.

Yup.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 8):
Perhaps though this will lead to a greater ability to solve murder crimes which could result in a lower homicide rate and the inconvenience of being a suspect, or indeed, dying, will be reduced.

Or, it will lead to a police state where innocent people are presumed guilty simply because they own a gun.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):
Well.. How do you feel about Voter Registration?

And exactly how does that play into this? We have voter registration in order to assure ourselves that those folks voting are eligible to vote. You and I both know that I don't think the requirements go far enough, but that's besides the point.

Firearms registration is not a way to cull the ineligible from owning a gun...we already have background checks for that (and, if you've been paying attention, I'm for universal background check), registration is a way for the the authorities to know who has a gun, legally. I don't want the government to know that. The government has failed to provide a compelling reason for having that information.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7411 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 5):
OK...Consider this. Lets just say you own Gun Type "A". Somewhere within a 20 mile radius someone has recently murdered another with....with (Gun Type A). Lets assume that everyone within that 20 mile radius, prior to the murder registered their (Gun Type A). Lets again assume maybe 35 gun owners have this (Gun Type A). Wouldn't you think that since you are now in a system that has mapped out all the 35 owners of (Gun Type A) that they all will automatically be flagged as potential criminals? You have now availed yourself to a bad day.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
I posted a fictional dialogue in another thread a while back.

Wow you guys both wearing tinfoil hats, do you think this ever happens in other countries where guns are registered? good grief, register your guns it's pretty simple, you register yours cars, you register where you live, what's the big deal registering your guns, most other countries manage it without any problems.


User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3959 times:

1) Confiscation
2) Taxation
3) Remember the fiasco where a Northeastern newspaper got ahold of a list of gun owners, then published it? Expect that, but a much larger scale. Registration should not be public information.


I'll also leave this here, have a laugh:



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinedl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3950 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
People have been brainwashed into believing that registration is the first step towards confiscation

It's not brainwashing, and by calling it such and accusing people who resist greater governemnt interference in their lives of paranoia and other accusations causes people to start arguing about the wrong things. It makes people defensive and angry, which does little to advance debates.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 4):
There are a bit more than 5 million legally registered guns in private hands in Germany (I don´t remember the exact figure), but the head of the Bundeskriminalamt (the approximate equivalent of the FBI in Germany, though with less powers) had stated that his department estimates that there are about 20 million illegal and unregistered guns around over here.

another point against the federal registration of firerams. The majority of crimes ares committed using illegally owned firearms. There are already an estimated 275 million firearms in private hands in the US. How are you reliably going to account and register all of those firearms? How much will be spent in the pointless endeavour? Hundreds of millions of firearms will remain unregistered and millions of criminals created, while doing little to slow criminals from committing crimes.

Registration is yet another high hope by people who believe that more laws and regulations will solve issues that are already regulated but not being addressed by the LEO authorities involved.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Or, it will lead to a police state where innocent people are presumed guilty simply because they own a gun.

Or because they are brown in Arizona... (SB170). Is it not the same issue?

Registering people for one right is just as good registering people for another,.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
And exactly how does that play into this? We have voter registration in order to assure ourselves that those folks voting are eligible to vote. You and I both know that I don't think the requirements go far enough, but that's besides the point.

It has everything to do with it! Both are constitutional rights, lets make sure that everyone is nice and papered up BEFORE they get to exercise them

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 11):
1) Confiscation
2) Taxation
3) Remember the fiasco where a Northeastern newspaper got ahold of a list of gun owners, then published it? Expect that, but a much larger scale. Registration should not be public information.

Is that applicable to Voter Registration too? Will voter registration lead to vote taxation?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 10):
Wow you guys both wearing tinfoil hats,

What other reason would exist for a registration database, then? If I were a police commander and I had this tool at my disposal, the first question I would ask is "who has a firearm in that caliber in this area"?

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 10):
do you think this ever happens in other countries where guns are registered?

Do you know that it doesn't? Are you privy to the police investigations of every shooting?

Again, we are told that if we register our guns, gun violence will go down. I can't understand how it could go down if the police don't use the tool to find the gun used in the crime.

The only other possible explanation for a registration database is so that the government knows who has guns so that they may tax them or take them.

And, as I've said before in other, non-gun, threads...the power to tax is the power to destroy.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3934 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 13):
Is that applicable to Voter Registration too? Will voter registration lead to vote taxation?

Why on earth are you so gun-ho (see what I did there??) about your voter registration comparison?   Give me a constitutional amendment saying my guns wont be taxed, and maybe myself and others would open up to the idea of registration. Poll taxes are illegal, as I am sure you know.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7411 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3926 times:

Quoting dl021 (Reply 12):
There are already an estimated 275 million firearms in private hands in the US. How are you reliably going to account and register all of those firearms?

There are a similar number of motor vehicles in the US, how do they manage to register all of those, isn't it also illegial to drive an unregistered motorvehicle, don't you also have to register when you buy sell or trade your motorvehicle. If it can be done with cars there is no reason why it can't be done with guns.

It's not that difficult, if people don't register and get caught they pay a fine, simple, when a gun is sold it's registered, just like with a car, you can manage it with motor vehicles so you can manage it with guns, those that think it's difficult are just being pig headed.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3926 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 15):
Why on earth are you so gun-ho (see what I did there??

Nicely Done!! - Touche..

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 15):
about your voter registration comparison?

But seriously , its true. Generally speaking the anti-immigration, pro+voter registration folks that scream and shout on how everyone should have their paper and how everyone who votes should be registered and present ID; get their panties in a bunch when the same is applied to guns. I just don't get it.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

The thing I don't understand is: The same people who do not want guns to be registered because that *MIGHT* (key word) be used for taxing or confiscating or rounding people up in the night, those are the same people who said about government data mining and Patriot Act "Well, if you are not doing anything wrong, the government in your e-mail is a good thing!"

They are okay with the government reading everyone's e-mails and listening to everyone's phone calls but how dare they try to find out who owns what guns!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3919 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):
Again, we are told that if we register our guns, gun violence will go down. I can't understand how it could go down if the police don't use the tool to find the gun used in the crime.

Spot on, not to mention, if registration becomes mandatory, most deviants wont willingly walk in to the local police station and be alll "Here man, this gun is in my possession illegally".



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6104 posts, RR: 28
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3918 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 6):
The NRA will keep knocking down any change in hopes the public gives up the fight

People like me will continue to send them money to keep on fighting

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 8):
Perhaps though this will lead to a greater ability to solve murder crimes which could result in a lower homicide rate and the inconvenience of being a suspect, or indeed, dying, will be reduced.

I doubt the street thugs in places like Detroit, with illegally imported or stolen guns, will be lining up to have their guns registered.

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 11):
I'll also leave this here, have a laugh:

Typical gun grabber, she doesn't even know how to handle a gun. You always treat a firearm like it is loaded.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 4):
but the head of the Bundeskriminalamt (the approximate equivalent of the FBI in Germany, though with less powers) had stated that his department estimates that there are about 20 million illegal and unregistered guns around over here.

I have seen a couple of them. I was offered a couple of pistols in Germany back in 2011. I turned the guy down because I already owned one of them and getting them out of the country would have been too big of pain in the butt. Back in 2008 I saw a nice collection of unregistered firearms in the UK. Some of you might say "you should have turned those guys in because they were breaking the law". I think their governments were suppressing their God given right to own firearms free of government obstruction. I'm no snitch and ratting out law breakers is a good way to get hurt.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 17):

Because registering for voting is guaranteed not to be taxed, you nor any other person can guarantee the same without some sort of amendment.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):

FWIW, I think the Patriot Act is a load of crap  



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 21):
Because registering for voting is guaranteed not to be taxed, you nor any other person can guarantee the same without some sort of amendment.

Case for free IDs used for voting then?  

But in all seriousness, the link between registration and taxation is all tin foil talk; brought up by others - not me

[Edited 2013-03-06 08:00:39]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 22):
Case for free IDs used for voting then?

Voted "No" for the Voter ID amendment here in Minnesota  



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3881 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 22):
the link between registration and taxation is all tin foil talk

Agree to disagree   We all have our concerns.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlinesurfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3935 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
People have been brainwashed into believing that registration is the first step towards confiscation and that they can only defend themselves from tyranny if they have their own private arsenals. It is neither a rational line of thought nor supported by facts, but nevertheless it exists.
Quoting aloges (Reply 1):

Problem with your hypothesis is, confiscation fears are not unfounded. Take California, for example:

CA Wants to Take Registered Guns


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12563 posts, RR: 25
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3928 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
registration is the first step towards confiscation
Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
defend themselves from tyranny

Gun enthusiasts paranoid? Say it isn't so!

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 6):
IMHO no solution is going to be perfect, though that doesn't mean we stop trying.


Indeed, but by insisting on perfection the NRA can impede the process, so that's what they do. They also lobby to make sure BATF has a tiny budget, prevent meaningful gun safety studies, etc.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):
What other reason would exist for a registration database, then? If I were a police commander and I had this tool at my disposal, the first question I would ask is "who has a firearm in that caliber in this area"?

Funny how we read that cops are smart enough to not enter a residence that says it has no firearms and treat it as if it has firearms, yet these same cops are not smart enough to realize that the criminal might not have registered their gun.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 18):
The same people who do not want guns to be registered because that *MIGHT* (key word) be used for taxing or confiscating or rounding people up in the night, those are the same people who said about government data mining and Patriot Act "Well, if you are not doing anything wrong, the government in your e-mail is a good thing!"

Gun enthusiasts switch back and forth between being patriots and anarchists, depending on what argument they are trying to make at the time.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 20):
God given right to own firearms free of government obstruction

Ahh, now we're down to "God wants me to have a gun!".

I'm not exactly sure how to square that with "Love each other as I have loved you", etc.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3930 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 20):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 4):
but the head of the Bundeskriminalamt (the approximate equivalent of the FBI in Germany, though with less powers) had stated that his department estimates that there are about 20 million illegal and unregistered guns around over here.

I have seen a couple of them. I was offered a couple of pistols in Germany back in 2011. I turned the guy down because I already owned one of them and getting them out of the country would have been too big of pain in the butt. Back in 2008 I saw a nice collection of unregistered firearms in the UK. Some of you might say "you should have turned those guys in because they were breaking the law". I think their governments were suppressing their God given right to own firearms free of government obstruction. I'm no snitch and ratting out law breakers is a good way to get hurt.

Most of these guns are staying simply hidden somewhere by the owner, who wants to keep them "just in case", but are never used. I knew a guy who bought an old farm. When he rebuilt the barn, he found a WW1 rifle and some ammunition hidden behind the wall paneling. It was neatly wrapped in oiled cloth, probably 50-70 years before by some German WW1 soldier, who returned home (remember we had civil war like riots between communists and rightwing militias back then) and decided that the rifle might come useful some day for hunting.
The new owner cleaned it, oiled it, wrapped it up and hid it again, "just in case".
I also mknew about a Dutch guy, who bought a house in Oosterbek, where the British paratroopers had their last stand in the failed attempt to capture the Arnhem bridges in 1944, and found an old submachine gun hidden in the attic, left there by some British paratrooper 60 years before. He hid it again, because if he would have handed it to the police, they would just have cut it up and scrapped it. For him it was a historic relict.

Jan


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3927 times:

Love each other as i have loved you.......Heffner Right?


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3916 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Or, it will lead to a police state where innocent people are presumed guilty simply because they own a gun.

That's a silly scare story. Just because police have more information doesn't mean they'll reverse the basic tenets of justice. And if they do it'll be because there is a flaw with the judicial system and not because of any registration law.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 20):
I doubt the street thugs in places like Detroit, with illegally imported or stolen guns, will be lining up to have their guns registered.

I doubt it too, but many illegally acquired guns are gained from a legal owners selling it on and having a trace on that can't hurt.

There does seem to be a bit of a defeatist attitude. I'm not a big fan of legislation solving problems but the problem with murder is the victim doesn't get compensated.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 26):
yet these same cops are not smart enough to realize that the criminal might not have registered their gun.

Then why register guns? If the criminals aren't going to register their guns (and we know they won't), why should the law-abiding folks have to register their guns.

The pro-gun registration folks say registration will reduce crime. We know that is false. A lie. So why a registration database?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 972 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3889 times:

Because it is the "Well Regulated" part of the Amendment that is always glossed over. Insurance should be required as well...like your car, boat, motorcycle etc...you know, those items that have the potential to harm another citizen. Kinda odd that something NOT designed to wound or kill, your car, requires insurance; but a device that is does not....

Crazy country I live in.



Carpe Pices
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3888 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 24):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 22):
the link between registration and taxation is all tin foil talk

Agree to disagree We all have our concerns.

Wait - Guns are already Taxed no? If i buy a gun do i pay tax on it? Taxes on bullets?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 30):
The pro-gun registration folks say registration will reduce crime. We know that is false. A lie. So why a registration database?

How do you know this? Is there any place in the world that has unregistered guns that have a lower crime rate than the US?

Since pro-gun folks love to point to Switzerland as an example of gun rights, are guns in Switzerland registered?

It may have been a lie - but my Swiss buddy told me that bullets are marked and they can be traced to the person that owns them. - is that true? can anyone confirm?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3879 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 32):
Wait - Guns are already Taxed no? If i buy a gun do i pay tax on it? Taxes on bullets?

There are proposals out there to tax gun annually as additional property to pay for gun violence.


Quoting mt99 (Reply 32):
How do you know this?

It is a lie because there are over 250,000,000 firearms in non-state hands. Unfortunately, not all those guns are in the hands of those that can legally own them...we tend to call those folks: felons. There not all felons...there are other reasons you can be denied a firearm, though they all would be considered felons if caught, tried and convicted of having a firearm when they are not legally entitled to owning a firearm.

But, I think its rather safe to say that if only those who legally own firearms register them, the crime rate will not go down because the criminals i.e. those that use guns in a crime, will not register their guns.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3872 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 33):
There are proposals out there to tax gun annually as additional property to pay for gun violence.

NO need to tax for annual gun ownership. Just tax bullets.. Its the same thing for all practical purposes...



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3865 times:

Quoting dl021 (Reply 12):
another point against the federal registration of firerams. The majority of crimes ares committed using illegally owned firearms. There are already an estimated 275 million firearms in private hands in the US. How are you reliably going to account and register all of those firearms?

You won't, at least not right away. But over time (a long time) the proportion of registered guns will increase. But that process doesn't start until you start requiring registration.

Also, I'd argue that the fact that there will inevitably be unregistered firearms out there is a poor reason to not make registration a requirement.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 20):
I doubt the street thugs in places like Detroit, with illegally imported or stolen guns, will be lining up to have their guns registered.

They probably won't. But if they should get stopped for some reason and found with the guns, then there will be an extra possibility to prosecute them and get them off the streets, perhaps before they use those guns in a crime.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):
What other reason would exist for a registration database, then?

Simple: you recover a gun with serial number X at a crime scene. Using the database, you can find out who was supposed to be owning that gun, and you can go to them and start asking questions about where they were at the time of the shooting, and if they weren't involved why their gun was involved. And then if it turns out that they've been illegally selling guns to people, they can be held accountable.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 4
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3867 times:

Americans have a very convaluted sense of privacy. To them it seems that asking or knowing what brand of toothpaste they use is considered an invasion of the personal privacy. By telling the government they own a firearm they feel that it would be exposing them as people to "keep an eye on" so to speak. I'm sure a lot of the gun owners in some of the more southern states are your "off the grid" types who don't want to leave any tracks or have any trail due to previous things from their past.

I've always believed, the ones who have something to hide will complain about privacy but those who don't have no reason to squack. If you are a legitimate and honest person you should have nothing to hide from the government, including whether or not you own firearms.



Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3860 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 1):
People have been brainwashed into believing that registration is the first step towards confiscation

Tell that to the people of California, who had one of their Reps introduce a bill that would require all people with certain registered weapons to turn them in.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3856 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 34):
NO need to tax for annual gun ownership. Just tax bullets.. Its the same thing for all practical purposes...

I already pay a sales tax on my ammunition. Any other tax would be considered an excise tax. Now, if that tax became so burdensome as to prevent the average person from buying ammunition, I believe that it would be unconstitutional.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 36):
I've always believed, the ones who have something to hide will complain about privacy but those who don't have no reason to squack. If you are a legitimate and honest person you should have nothing to hide from the government, including whether or not you own firearms.

So, you would not have a problem with the police executing a "stop and frisk" on you for no reason? How about a casual search of your home? Your car? Your background? Bank accounts? Financial statements and employment history? I mean, you have nothing to hide, right? No harm there. Let them do what they will?

The government does not have a compelling reason to ask law-abiding gun owners to register their firearms.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinesurfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 37):
Tell that to the people of California, who had one of their Reps introduce a bill that would require all people with certain registered weapons to turn them in.

Yes. Which I linked in reply 25.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Simple: you recover a gun with serial number X at a crime scene. Using the database, you can find out who was supposed to be owning that gun, and you can go to them and start asking questions about where they were at the time of the shooting, and if they weren't involved why their gun was involved. And then if it turns out that they've been illegally selling guns to people, they can be held accountable.

You can do the same thing with universal background checks and a court order. I mean, that's the goal isn't it? Finding the last legal owner of the gun, right?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinesurfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

Quoting bhill (Reply 31):

Because it is the "Well Regulated" part of the Amendment that is always glossed over. Insurance should be required as well...like your car, boat, motorcycle etc...you know, those items that have the potential to harm another citizen. Kinda odd that something NOT designed to wound or kill, your car, requires insurance; but a device that is does not....

Crazy country I live in.

Problem is, the "militia" clause is the prefatory, not operative clause of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed this as such in the Heller decision:

Quoting Supreme Court DC v. Heller:
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3830 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 7):
Well.. How do you feel about Voter Registration

That is a rhetorical question...In this case apples and oranges...both are fruit.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 8):
Perhaps though this will lead to a greater ability to solve murder crimes which could result in a lower homicide rate and the inconvenience of being a suspect, or indeed, dying, will be reduced.

I would agree with your point and I understand the logic of it however the US government is on a power grab tsunami kick these days. If I felt the intentions of this government were sincere, then I feel what you say would hold water but currently, such is not the case.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 10):
Wow you guys both wearing tinfoil hats, do you think this ever happens in other countries where guns are registered? good grief, register your guns it's pretty simple, you register yours cars, you register where you live, what's the big deal registering your guns, most other countries manage it without any problems.

Most other countries don't abide by our Constitution. We have a different way of life here and Americans don't much appreciate being told what size soda cup we can have, how much salt to put on our food, stripping us of our rights to protect our own families and property. My guess is your country has its own crime levels, murder rates, prisons, black market for guns sales. The holier than thow from down under doesn't work. Every country has issues. The right to the many freedoms our constitution guarantees to its legal citizens is protected by the Constitution as the method of regulating freedom can quickly get out of hand by power grabbers. That is our current situation we are finding ourselves in today.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 38):
So, you would not have a problem with the police executing a "stop and frisk" on you for no reason? How about a casual search of your home? Your car? Your background? Bank accounts? Financial statements and employment history? I mean, you have nothing to hide, right? No harm there. Let them do what they will?

Should be fine.. you should be asked for proof of citizenship too. If you have a problem on why ask Jan Brewer in AZ. if you cant as Sheriiff Joe Arpaio.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 38):
Now, if that tax became so burdensome as to prevent the average person from buying ammunition, I believe that it would be unconstitutional.

Define "burdensome"?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekachum From Belarus, joined Jul 2006, 64 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3817 times:

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 36):
I've always believed, the ones who have something to hide will complain about privacy but those who don't have no reason to squack. If you are a legitimate and honest person you should have nothing to hide from the government, including whether or not you own firearms.

And following this logic, Belarus fingerprinted all their male adult population. I take it you would be gladly fingerprinted by Harper's government? You are an honest person with nothing to hide, right?

[Edited 2013-03-06 13:24:36]

User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7411 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3805 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):
What other reason would exist for a registration database, then? If I were a police commander and I had this tool at my disposal, the first question I would ask is "who has a firearm in that caliber in this area"?

Why do you register your motorvehicle, for what reason, surlely is it any different from some one doing a hit and run, whitneses say it was a red car so the cops round up all people in the area who own red cars, not likely is it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 14):
Do you know that it doesn't? Are you privy to the police investigations of every shooting?

I've had this discussion with some police friends, one who is a CID officer, it's just not practicle, even in NZ where there are significantly less guns, police do not chase up everyone who lives in a certain area who has a certain calibre firearm, because you could be looking at hundreds of people, in the US it would probably be much higher, talk about a needle in a haystack.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
Should be fine

So, you're fine giving up your Fourth Amendment rights because "you have nothing to hide"?

Hey, nice try at deflection, by the way.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
Define "burdensome"?

1.oppressively heavy; onerous.
2.distressing; troublesome. .



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3789 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 46):

So, you're fine giving up your Fourth Amendment rights because "you have nothing to hide"?

Absolutely - True Patriots like Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio and several others on this forum think its a great idea. Don't you?

I just join them on their worthy cause.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 46):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
Define "burdensome"?

1.oppressively heavy; onerous.
2.distressing; troublesome. .

Cute - but my mistake for not being specific. Tell me as a percentage - what would a burdensome tax on bullets be? 50%? 2% 75%?

[Edited 2013-03-06 13:49:12]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 47):
Cute - but my mistake for not being specific. Tell me as a percentage - what would a burdensome tax on bullets be? 50%? 2% 75%?

That would be for a court to decide, wouldn't it? I could probably afford, say a 20 or 30% tax without too much of a problem. But, what about a co-ed who wants to buy a gun? What about that poor soul living paycheck to paycheck that wants to buy a gun? The single mother, living on welfare? Should these people not have a right to defend themselves?

Let me tell you what a small tax would do...it would mean less range time. Less practice and lower proficiency for those who own guns. Hmm, I thought one of the big issues on a-net was that gun-owners don't have enough training.

What about a medium level tax? I would go out and buy a rig and start reloading my own ammo. My usage is right on the edge of making that a sound economic decision right now.

A high, cumbersome, oppressive, onerous tax? Well, until it's found unconstitutional, it would cause ammunition sales to go on the blackmarket and more people would die. And more law enforcement resources would be wasted on "the war on bullets".



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
small tax would do..
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
medium level tax?
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 48):
A high, cumbersome, oppressive, onerous tax

Right - so should guns be exempt any tax - including sales tax?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3750 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 49):
Right - so should guns be exempt any tax - including sales tax?

Please point to the post where I said that guns and/or ammunition should be exempt from sales tax. You'll note that I don't even say they should be exempt from an excise tax. I wouldn't like it, but if it stood court scrutiny, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? by the way...do we tax any other constitutional right?

I say that any tax imposed on firearms and/or ammunition can not be so cumbersome or onerous or burdensome or whatever other word you want to use, as to constitute an real impediment to owning a firearm. I posted the following in the other thread and will post it again and ask for your answer:

How about this: let's say you want to go to D.C. and exercise your First Amendment right to speak out against "inadequate firearms storage provisions in current law" and you head over to Freedom Plaza to speak your mind. But, when you get there, the authorities inform you that due to the volatile nature of political speech you have to secure a $1million liability policy before you can speak. Where do you think the court would go with that?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3741 times:

Quoting kachum (Reply 44):
And following this logic, Belarus fingerprinted all their male adult population. I take it you would be gladly fingerprinted by Harper's government? You are an honest person with nothing to hide, right?

I believe most countries with a national ID system collect fingerprints as part of the process, so everyone's prints are collected, male, female, infants, etc.

Spain at least does.


User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 4
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3715 times:

Quoting kachum (Reply 44):

My fingerprints are on file as I hold an airport restricted clearance pass. To go airside for my job I must scan my RFID pass and then place my finger on a scanner. Only once I am verified to be who the pass says I am can I go airside. I have nothing to hide. My prints won't be appearing on any crime scenes.

The whole "finger prints" thing was a bit kafuffle because people felt it invaded their privacy? Who's privacy is being invaded by taking prints? Only those who have a reason to believe their prints would match those found previously on a crime scene or weapon used in a crime.



Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
You can do the same thing with universal background checks and a court order.

If the dealers are keeping their records properly, I suppose you could. If they're not keeping their records properly (and we can safely assume that if there are some that aren't, they're the ones that cater mostly to criminals), then that's a problem. Might as well have the government do it and put strict limits on what they can and can't do with that information.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
I mean, that's the goal isn't it? Finding the last legal owner of the gun, right?

There are three goals as far as I'm concerned. One is, as you said, finding the last legal owner of a gun used in a crime and holding them accountable if necessary. The second is ensuring that purchases of a gun in a certain state are by residents of that particular state, so that people can't circumvent gun laws by crossing state borders - the background check should take care of this, but it's just one more layer. The third goal is to use the database in order to conduct statistical research, which we've had a great shortage of in the area of firearms in this country.

That is all. I have no desire to see firearms taxed at a federal level (if states want to do it that's their business), nor do I have any desire to see a database used to generate a list of possible suspects for any particular crime when a weapon hasn't even been recovered. And whatever information is in the database should be kept private.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3692 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 53):
If the dealers are keeping their records properly,

I've already suggested that the record keeping laws must be improved in order for a universal background check system to work correctly. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with random checks to ensure compliance...just like FFL's are currently subject to checks of their paperwork and inventory.

I have a serious issue with the government holding onto this kind of database. A registration database is the first step to confiscation. You may not want to confiscate firearms. Hell, the current crop of anti-gunners may not be gunning for confiscation (I think they are, but, let's pretend). But what about 5, 10, 50 years from now? Sorry, I want to pass the same rights on to my kids and grand-kids that I have.

The only "inch" I'm willing to give is on the background checks. Because I want to be as assured as I can be that folks who purchase guns are eligible to do so. And, I'll give a "millimeter or two" on reasonable storage requirements, because that's just smart. Though, I think that would be a tougher nut to crack than the background checks.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12563 posts, RR: 25
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3644 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 30):
Then why register guns? If the criminals aren't going to register their guns (and we know they won't), why should the law-abiding folks have to register their guns.

You should re-read #6:

Quoting luv2fly (Reply 6):
IMHO no solution is going to be perfect, though that doesn't mean we stop trying. And that right there is what I see as going to happen. The NRA will keep knocking down any change in hopes the public gives up the fight.

You can continue to argue that any gun law must cover each and every circumstance to perfection, but the rest of us see right through this line of ill-logic.

In any case, Mir gave the answer which you haven't refuted to any meaningful degree:

Quoting Mir (Reply 35):
Simple: you recover a gun with serial number X at a crime scene. Using the database, you can find out who was supposed to be owning that gun, and you can go to them and start asking questions about where they were at the time of the shooting, and if they weren't involved why their gun was involved. And then if it turns out that they've been illegally selling guns to people, they can be held accountable.

And:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 40):
You can do the same thing with universal background checks and a court order.

My understanding is that a background check says person X is allowed to purchase a firearm of type Y but doesn't say that they own the firearm with serial number Z.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3629 times:

I have decided I dont really care any more if Americans are OK with killing each other, but this is the bit I really dont get

Quoting falstaff (Reply 20):
I think their governments were suppressing their God given right to own firearms free of government obstruction

In a nation that is increasingly trying to remove God and religion from politics, I fail to see how God gives the right to gun ownership - if anything, the bible says do not kill...

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 52):
My fingerprints are on file as I hold an airport restricted clearance pass

As a British passport holder, the US government takes my fingerprints each time I apply for a visa waiver to cross the border (so up to 4 times a year as they are good for 3 months).

Anyway, my 2 cents on registration.

The real isue in my mind is not to keep track of 250m guns in case of what they might be used for if stolen from law abiding citizens, or those in the hands of criminals which as rightly stated is mission impossible, but to stop guns being so easily obtainable by persons with mental illness, minors or even in domestic violence which may not ever have been dreamt of going as far as a homicide if a gun was not so readily available as well as accidents. Remember all this came about after Newtown & Aurora, which were not commited by criminals or with illegal weapons.

IMO a registration is rather pointless and will only work if there are increased formalities to licensing of the owners too as well as the gun itself. So a gun user must have a gun license, just as a car user must have a drivers license. There then needs to be basic training and some sort of proficiency exam to obtain said license, just as taking a driving test to get a car license. In addition to operation, there needs to be instruction on storage and security, which would take care of of some accidental deaths and availability to minors. There also have to be medical requirements to obtain said license which will eliminate some persons from ownership who are unfit to do so. I believe persons with a criminal record should also be unable to obtain said license, including DUI's. This wont by any means solve the problem, but if it is that much harder it will result in reduced deaths and IMO even one or two saved lived would be worth it.

Once that is done, what the registration of the gun will do is help reduce unbeknown sales from a law abiding gun owner to someone in the above categories. Just like when you exchange the titles on a vehicle and it is flagged if stolen or otherwise involved in a previous crime, you would do the same when trading a gun, so if the buyer flags as not having a license or the gun itself is flagged as stolen at some point, the sale is terminated and the government is alerted. If it is not, then you as the seller are criminally liable and the transaction is traceable. More like car insurance I suppose, there would have to annual renewal of the gun license to confirm current ownership to prevent under the table trading. Criminals wont care, but law abiding citizens like legal car drivers will.

There would of course be a nominal fee for both said licenses - which no one complains about for a drivers license - and a small fee for a title sale which would eliminate the need for tax (particularly if both are taxed normally anyway). Along with penalties for infringements (just like owning a car) the whole system is then self funding (just like how cars are kept on the road). Some may complain about this added cost, but in fairness if you have the spare cash to buy a gun in the first place and the ammunition, then I venture to suggest its not really a big deal.

Maybe some of the details can be ironed out or improved, but that is one practical idea in my view to deal with the real issue at hand. A registry alone is near worthless.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7411 posts, RR: 5
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3612 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 30):
Then why register guns? If the criminals aren't going to register their guns (and we know they won't), why should the law-abiding folks have to register their guns.

Then why register your car, it could be stolen by criminals and used in a crime, so by your rules why should law abiding folks have to register their cars.

BTW I'm not anti gun, I enjoy shooting, I just think the system in the US is stupid, broken and in need to reform.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11659 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 21):
I think the Patriot Act is a load of crap

Yeah... I never liked it either.

Another thing:

When GWB was president, we loved this country so much. With all the shootings and domestic terrorism and kids killing kids, we loved this country and we loved the government. Now, all of a sudden, we need to have our guns to stage a coup because the government wants to take our guns? Even though it has been proven time and again the government is not taking guns away?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 57):

Then why register your car, it could be stolen by criminals and used in a crime, so by your rules why should law abiding folks have to register their cars.

The primary purpose of vehicle registration is taxes and emission control. Also, there is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle, other than your standard equal protection right (they have to have a compelling reason to deny you that right, and any tests must be fair and accessible).



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12563 posts, RR: 25
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3513 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 59):
The primary purpose of vehicle registration is taxes and emission control.

Those purposes could be fulfilled without putting a large plate on each vehicle with large numbers and specialized lighting to make sure they are readable night and day. They could be done with a sticker kept on the windshield, which is in fact how emissions is dealt with in most states and how taxation is done in the UK and other jurisdictions.

The justification for vehicle registration is taxation, but the government lawfully also uses registration for the purposes of emission control and vehicle safety. One purpose of the large illuminated unique number plates is to make it easier to identify people operating vehicles unsafely both by law enforcement and by ordinary citizens.

It certainly would be possible for the government to justify registering guns solely for the purpose of improving gun safety. USSC decisions already say that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and the right to bear arms needs to be balanced against the various rights of citizens to not be shot by someone who cannot handle a gun safely and does not use it for its intended purposes i.e. the traditional roles of home defense and use as a part of a militia.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

I find it hypocritcial and sad that the majority of those against Gun registration are the same group that demand Voter ID laws.

I guess we should stop registering Cars to since those could be confiscated by the Government as well.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 45):
Why do you register your motorvehicle, for what reason,


So the state can get revenue from you re-registering it every year. Has nothing to do with tracking who owns it, its where can we get money from every year on that vehicle.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 55):
My understanding is that a background check says person X is allowed to purchase a firearm of type Y but doesn't say that they own the firearm with serial number Z.

Your understanding is incorrect. When I purchase a firearm from an FFL, the form includes make/model & serial number of the firearm. Under current law, the form is kept by the FFL in a "bound book".

Like I've said, ad-nauseum, I would support universal background check and updated record keeping regulations. But, I want this information retained by the FFL, a private citizen. I do not want this information retained in any government database.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 55):
In any case, Mir gave the answer which you haven't refuted to any meaningful degree:

Yes, I have. mandatory background checks for every transfer is a de-facto registration database that addresses Mir's answer. I just want that database retained by private actors, not government actors.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3378 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 62):
So the state can get revenue from you re-registering it every year. Has nothing to do with tracking who owns it, its where can we get money from every year on that vehicle.

Absolutely, and when nobody saw anything wrong with states making people put a big marker plate on it, now you have this situation where government agents (police) can know all about you as you roll down the road by checking your plate against a database right in their car. But I'm sure police officers have never abused that information.

Makes you wonder whether people would have been so keen to implement marker plates had the technology been at the government's fingertips at that time.

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 36):

I've always believed, the ones who have something to hide will complain about privacy but those who don't have no reason to squack. If you are a legitimate and honest person you should have nothing to hide from the government, including whether or not you own firearms.

I used to think this way, but not anymore. Not when we're even seriously entertaining whether or not the Federal Government should be using drones to monitor or kill US citizens without trial. How is that even negotiable?

I hate guns (actually I hate the holes that they put in people), don't have any guns, and I think a lot of the people who feel 'unsafe' without loaded guns within arms reach are crazy...but I can no longer argue that their dire predictions are not coming to pass. States all over this country are looking to enact restrictions on the freedoms of heretofore law abiding citizens based on the most asinine non-sequitors. When the Vice President, the man supposedly responsible for addressing the gun violence issue, suggests that people should be firing warning shots in the blind (but make the most of it because you've only got two rounds) you know that the entire thing has gone pear shaped.

I'm thinking about getting a Winchster Model 1894 on general principle. I want to be on 'the list'.


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 542 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 13):
Or because they are brown in Arizona... (SB170). Is it not the same issue?

Registering people for one right is just as good registering people for another,.

By that logic since I have to show an ID to buy a gun how about we require people to show an ID to vote?



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Others have pretty much said it. While law-abiding gun owners, like myself, will probably register their guns, those who intend to (or have) used their gun to commit a crime will never register them. Just putting law-abiding owners through more trouble, while criminals won't change anything.

User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3230 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 66):
Others have pretty much said it. While law-abiding gun owners, like myself, will probably register their guns, those who intend to (or have) used their gun to commit a crime will never register them. Just putting law-abiding owners through more trouble, while criminals won't change anything.

And then people will insist that this registry information be published.


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

Quoting Stabilator (Reply 23):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 22):
Case for free IDs used for voting then?

Voted "No" for the Voter ID amendment here in Minnesota  

Thank you!

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 37):
Tell that to the people of California, who had one of their Reps introduce a bill that would require all people with certain registered weapons to turn them in.

Yes and a few reps introduced bills making it illegal for a federal officer to confiscate a gun. Both sides are out there silly laws.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 60):
Those purposes could be fulfilled without putting a large plate on each vehicle with large numbers and specialized lighting to make sure they are readable night and day. They could be done with a sticker kept on the windshield, which is in fact how emissions is dealt with in most states and how taxation is done in the UK and other jurisdictions.

Where I can I get one of these plates?

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 67):

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 66):
Others have pretty much said it. While law-abiding gun owners, like myself, will probably register their guns, those who intend to (or have) used their gun to commit a crime will never register them. Just putting law-abiding owners through more trouble, while criminals won't change anything.

And then people will insist that this registry information be published.

Yes and I want Katy Perry's phone number to be published so I can call her up and ask her out on a date. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineboeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 856 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 57):

You shouldn't have to register a car more than once per purchase. You should be able to buy it, have a visible tag on it and be done. If you sell it, that person should then pay a tag fee and be done. All annual registration does is increase the size of government. It serves no other purpose. It's not a reasonable comparison. Annual registration is there to make money for the State.


User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

Because the NRA wants you to live in fear that any step by the US Government to hold people accountable, is the first step in stripping your 2nd Amendment rights away and guess what, if you support them, they will do everything to keep it from happening. They want to regurgitate all their rhetoric like "they did it in Australia and they will do it here" even though we are a totally different country or "an armed society, is a safe society". When you constantly show up after mass shootings, spouting your rhetoric, I lose all respect for you.

I am not paranoid nor do I live in fear of the US Government taking my rights away and I am smart enough to recognize, that the NRA benefits from a society that lives in fear. What is sad is half of my friends Facebook posts, are constantly about the 2nd Amendment and the fear of their guns being taken away?

I am more in fear of the person that stockpiles guns and ammo in their house, being paranoid the Gov. is going to come take their guns away, than I am of the Gov. coming to take my guns away, because it will never happen.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 68):
Yes and a few reps introduced bills making it illegal for a federal officer to confiscate a gun.

Nice deflection. Doesn't change the fact that the reason people believe it, is because it's happened.

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 70):
nor do I live in fear of the US Government taking my rights away

Technically, they are. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a right, and the US and subordinate governments (like all governments) has a history of violating rights. Just look at Miranda v Arizona, Brown v Board, DC v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, etc...

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 70):
What is sad is half of my friends Facebook posts, are constantly about the 2nd Amendment and the fear of their guns being taken away?

I do agree the Facebook rhetoric is worse than the rhetoric here, and that's saying something  
Quoting Mudboy (Reply 70):
I am more in fear of the person that stockpiles guns and ammo in their house, being paranoid the Gov. is going to come take their guns away, than I am of the Gov. coming to take my guns away, because it will never happen.

Why? When has such a person ever caused any issues related to the confiscation of guns?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 68):
Yes and I want Katy Perry's phone number to be published so I can call her up and ask her out on a date. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

What I'm talking about has already happened Caleb!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/ny...-a-target.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 70):
What is sad is half of my friends Facebook posts, are constantly about the 2nd Amendment and the fear of their guns being taken away?

It does get old, BUT to be fair to them much of what they fear is being discussed in the halls of Federal & State governments. I used to mock them but now see they have a point.


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Quoting Smittyone (Reply 72):

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 68):
Yes and I want Katy Perry's phone number to be published so I can call her up and ask her out on a date. Doesn't mean it's going to happen.

What I'm talking about has already happened Caleb!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/ny...&_r=0

Yes, this was by a private company, not the government (I understand the information was public record). While I don't necessarily agree with what the paper did, but I can look up the owner of every single property in my county and find some personal information on them. Far more than I'd get from the link you posted above.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3138 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 71):
Why? When has such a person ever caused any issues related to the confiscation of guns?

They have not, I am just stating some of those with extremist views and paranoia, would scare me before the US Gov. would, example being James and Terry Nichols.


User currently offlinesurfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 73):
Yes, this was by a private company, not the government (I understand the information was public record). While I don't necessarily agree with what the paper did, but I can look up the owner of every single property in my county and find some personal information on them. Far more than I'd get from the link you posted above.

Perhaps you could, but anyone with an axe to grind against gun owners can file the appropriate FOIA requests and get information on CCW permit holders, just like that ridiculous paper did in New York. It caused enough backlash that in several states,bills have been introduced to take such information out of the public record, and as such, not subject to FOIA requests.


User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Firearms registration is not a way to cull the ineligible from owning a gun...we already have background checks for that (and, if you've been paying attention, I'm for universal background check), registration is a way for the the authorities to know who has a gun, legally. I don't want the government to know that. The government has failed to provide a compelling reason for having that information.


More gun legislation will only help create a more active black market therefore defeating its own purpose. It makes as much sense as the TSA allowing knives, bats and 6 foot hockey sticks back on aircraft. Last I measured overhead Boeing bins were (5) foot in length. Where do the Hockey sticks go and why? I don't get any of it...nothing makes sense.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2855 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 76):
More gun legislation will only help create a more active black market therefore defeating its own purpose.

From where do you get these crazy ideas? Why on earth would you want illegal sales in the legal market? A more active black market is a sign of success in that the legal market has been closed to criminal activity. That is success.

With the legal market closed it is possible to address the problem with the black market. Success on that stage is that prices go up.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 3):
The only reason the government needs to know if you have something is to tax it or take it.

Another reason might be to identify guns used in a shooting. I tend to believe that law enforcement would like to have a database with ballistics data as well as information on the owner.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 3):
I tend to think they would tax guns.

When you look at the money that taxpayers are currently paying for gun shot health care it makes sense for gun owners to pick up part of the tab. A tax on both guns and ammunition use only for GSW care (including hospital and doctor costs) is logical. Especially when you consider the number of guns in this country - that tax wouldn't be that high (but would increase in line with medical inflation).


User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

Wow, all of you that are vehemently against anyone owning a gun are grasping and straws along with all the other 'doom and gloom' scenarios that you are presenting

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 78):
When you look at the money that taxpayers are currently paying for gun shot health care


Do you have any stats that compare this to oh say cancer or heart disease and some of the other 'killers' out there. I really do not think it even comes close.


User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The government will not be able to ensure 100% compliance with a gun registration law. There is no law on the books that has a 100% compliance rate. I'm sure you already pay taxes on your gun when you purchase it and I don't see a problem with a registration fee for the gun as the system of registration needs to be paid for somehow. The gun registration needs to happen at the point of sale like it is with anything else and there should be a penalty for non-compliance, maybe a fine for the first offence and increase in harshness for subsequent offenses. Will registration solve all problems, no. But responsible gun owners shouldn't fear laws and lets be honest, it doesn't matter how many guns you own if the government has UAV's that can kill you before you even realized you are a target, so enough with the tyranny crap.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Here's my view on how gun control should be.

1. Ban assault weapons, or make people who want to own them get permits. Yes you want to defend yourself and family and property, but you can do that with a pistol, knife, or any blunt object.

2. Make EVERYONE who wants to buy any type of firearm get a permit. I.E. a permit for handguns, permit for hunting firearms, antique firearms, assault firearms, etc... In order to get this permit one would have to pass a background test and, in some cases, a mental test. It would be easier for LEO's to know who has or supposed to have what firearm.

3. Ease the punishment on someone who has an expired permit. Instead of hauling someone to jail, just give them a ticket and tell them to get it registered, like a car.

4. Ban felons from buying firearms. If a felon is caught with a firearm, then the firearm should be confiscated and the felon would be taken to jail/prison.

5. (Probably the most controversial of how this could/would be carried out.) Crack-down on violent crimes that involve guns. If the US government can spy on a superpower, the USSR, with a nuclear arsenal, then I'm sure LEO's can infiltrate the black market and at least severely hurt the illegal firearms trade, if not stop it completely.

I am positive I will get flamed for this but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions.



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
Make EVERYONE who wants to buy any type of firearm get a permit.


Do you need a permit to vote? Exercise your individual right to free speech? How about a permit to exercise your religion?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
Ease the punishment on someone who has an expired permit.


I disagree. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (different from above, where you advocate a permit to own). If I allow that permit to lapse, I should be charged (if caught) with carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. That is a gun crime and should be treated harshly.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
Ban felons from buying firearms.


Already against the law. See 18USC922(d).

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
Crack-down on violent crimes that involve guns. If the US government can spy on a superpower, the USSR, with a nuclear arsenal, then I'm sure LEO's can infiltrate the black market and at least severely hurt the illegal firearms trade, if not stop it completely.


You have to be careful not to violate all them other pesky rights we have, but I agree...we need to aggressively enforce gun laws on the books, not add new laws that will be also be half-assed enforced, if ever.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
I am positive I will get flamed


I certainly hope you didn't consider this a "flaming".



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2724 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 82):
Do you need a permit to vote? Exercise your individual right to free speech? How about a permit to exercise your religion?

No but you do have to register, so still more required to vote than to own a firearm in many places.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

"Shall not be infringed"....what I own or buy is none of the governments business.


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 83):
No but you do have to register, so still more required to vote than to own a firearm in many places

Correct, you register to ensure you are eligible to vote and to ensure you are voting in the right place.

We have background checks to ensure you are eligible to buy a firearm. Make them universal. You don't need registration.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 82):
Do you need a permit to vote? Exercise your individual right to free speech? How about a permit to exercise your religion?

You need to register to vote so it's pretty much the same thing. If you are going to protest somewhere, you have to get it approved.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 82):
I certainly hope you didn't consider this a "flaming".

No I do not.  



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2986 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 84):

"Shall not be infringed"....what I own or buy is none of the governments business.

Then we should abolish all taxes, registrations, licenses, etc... Including for guns.

Sounds like a great idea.



The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2703 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):

1. Ban assault weapons, or make people who want to own them get permits. Yes you want to defend yourself and family and property, but you can do that with a pistol, knife, or any blunt object.

I am trying to figure out what banning 'assault" weapons will do, or what actually constitutes an 'assault' weapon. In 2011, 323 out of 12,664 murders in the U.S, or 2% of all murders were committed with rifles. 'Assault' rifles, being a sub-category of rifles, would be even less. Also, people want to ban rifles with an appearance similar to an AR-15, although a semi-automatic hunting rifle is functionally identical to it. And then there is the term that some use, and that is 'Military style.' What is military style? Weren't all types of guns designed for military use?

I'm not trying to attack you, but I just want to say how a ban on 'assault' rifles would use up tons of resources to implement/enforce, while causing little or no effect on murder/crime rates.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
2. Make EVERYONE who wants to buy any type of firearm get a permit. I.E. a permit for handguns, permit for hunting firearms, antique firearms, assault firearms, etc... In order to get this permit one would have to pass a background test and, in some cases, a mental test. It would be easier for LEO's to know who has or supposed to have what firearm.

Sounds like a lot of trouble that law-abiding gun owners will have to go through, while a gang member that wants to buy a Glock from another gang member will have no problems buying it.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
3. Ease the punishment on someone who has an expired permit. Instead of hauling someone to jail, just give them a ticket and tell them to get it registered, like a car.

Then people won't renew their permits, because they know in the off chance that an officer finds that they have no permit, they won't be charged with a felony. CWP permits need to be renewed before you continue carrying, as fr8mech said.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
4. Ban felons from buying firearms. If a felon is caught with a firearm, then the firearm should be confiscated and the felon would be taken to jail/prison.

Already a law.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):

5. (Probably the most controversial of how this could/would be carried out.) Crack-down on violent crimes that involve guns. If the US government can spy on a superpower, the USSR, with a nuclear arsenal, then I'm sure LEO's can infiltrate the black market and at least severely hurt the illegal firearms trade, if not stop it completely.

Yes, this would be very difficult to do, but enforcing current laws is the best thing you can do.


If I had to do anything about gun laws, I would focus on three key points:

1-Enforce current laws, without putting a burden on law-abiding gun owners. This would include cracking down on illegal sales. I'm not saying a background check on all sales, but making it easier to have a background check done. If you know someone isn't a felon, sell them a gun, but if you don't, you can call a law enforcement agency somehow and check.

2-Eliminate "Gun-Free" zones. Yes, this includes schools. Unless a building has metal detectors and security checks (like airports) someone could easily carry a gun in. Responsible, licensed CWP holders should be able to defend themselves, as they already can in most public places.

3-Educate people on gun safety. You teach children about other hazards they may encounter (Fire safety/"Look both ways when you cross the street"/how to dial 9-1-1, etc.), why not gun safety? Many are just as likely to see a gun as they are to have to dial 9-1-1.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2704 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 86):
You need to register to vote so it's pretty much the same thing. If you are going to protest somewhere, you have to get it approved.


Again, you register to vote in order to prove eligibility and in order to ensure you are voting in the correct precinct.

We have background checks in order to prove that you are eligible to own a gun. Make them universal, as I've supported ad-nauseum.

Even though the word registration is used in both cases, the meanings are different.

As for exercising your freedom of speech: do I have to get permission to bring my soapbox to The Capitol steps or The White House (as close as you can get) or to Freedom Plaza and express my opinion? Of course not.

I can spout pro- or anti- government rhetoric at will. I can can support any political cause I want. I don't have to get anyone's permission so long as I remain on public property.

I may have to get a permit if I want to organize a rally or a march or protest. And, that's largely for planning and organization purposes on the part of the city/state/federal organizations that may have to get involved (emergency services, sanitation, parks, etc.).



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
It would be easier for LEO's to know who has or supposed to have what firearm.

And exactly what benefit would that entail?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
4. Ban felons from buying firearms. If a felon is caught with a firearm, then the firearm should be confiscated and the felon would be taken to jail/prison.

A convicted felon (or other disqualified person) in possession of a firearm is already a felony.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 81):
If the US government can spy on a superpower, the USSR, with a nuclear arsenal, then I'm sure LEO's can infiltrate the black market and at least severely hurt the illegal firearms trade, if not stop it completely.

  

And just how well has that worked with the drug trade?

Spying is far different than preventing someone from having something.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 83):
No but you do have to register

And so long as you are a US citizen who has not had his civil rights taken away by a court of law, you cannot be denied registration.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 86):
If you are going to protest somewhere, you have to get it approved.

Nope. Only if your protest is going to cause otherwise undue disruption for other people, like a rally on a public street, and that's for the logistics of rerouting traffic and such, as well as making sure adequate security is in place.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 90):
And so long as you are a US citizen who has not had his civil rights taken away by a court of law, you cannot be denied registration.

Why do you believe that you would be denied registration of a firearm of you meet the appropriate requirements? Registration will only bolster accountability. It would reduce the amount of guns bought legally and then sold into the black market. It will not happen overnight and illegal guns will not disappear but at least the supply will slowly begin to cut down from this particular source anyway.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1884 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 89):
We have background checks in order to prove that you are eligible to own a gun. Make them universal, as I've supported ad-nauseum.

Background checks do nothing if a person legally buys the gun for someone that cannot legally do so on their own. This type of problem is something that only registration can stop.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 92):
Background checks do nothing if a person legally buys the gun for someone that cannot legally do so on their own. This type of problem is something that only registration can stop.


Registration does no such thing. Yeah, registration may present a hurdle to the guy "on the fence", but it's not going to stop "straw sales", at best, it will provide a speed bump.

In my personal and humble opinion, the speed bump it may provide isn't worth the the exposure that registration presents.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 91):
Why do you believe that you would be denied registration of a firearm of you meet the appropriate requirements?


There are, I believe, 10 states that are "may issue" states. You can meet all the federal requirements for owning a gun, but the state can still deny you the right to carry the gun.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2619 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 84):
"Shall not be infringed"...

"Well - regulated"  



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 94):
"Well - regulated"

Read Heller.  



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2611 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 84):
"Shall not be infringed"....what I own or buy is none of the governments business.

The conservative arm of the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 96):
The conservative arm of the Supreme Court disagrees with you

I'd have to read it again, but I think the Supreme Court says the states have the right to place some restrictions on the Second Amendment. I'm not so sure about a national registration.

[Edited 2013-03-18 08:13:07]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2602 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 97):
I'd have to read it again, but I think the Supreme Court says the states have the right to place some restrictions on the Second Amendment.

The Court said that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear firearms for purposes unconnected to a militia, but that said right is not absolute and that certain restrictions can be placed on it.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 97):
I'm not so sure about a national registration.

A registration requirement wouldn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms at all, assuming fees are reasonable. You can argue that required registration is a bad idea, but the idea that it wouldn't be constitutional doesn't hold water at all.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 98):
but the idea that it wouldn't be constitutional doesn't hold water at all.

I suspect that the potential uses of a registration database may make it unconstitutional. It's something that the Court would have to look pretty hard at.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 98):
A registration requirement wouldn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms at all, assuming fees are reasonable.

I don't see that particular argument being valid. It sounds like the same arguments that were used to justify poll taxes, which has been explicitly shot down in the courts as a violation of the 14th Amendment right to equal protection (even though the tax was usually equivalent to ~$15 in 2012 dollars)... and believe it or not there is stronger language protecting the right to bear arms than there is protecting suffrage.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2556 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 99):
I suspect that the potential uses of a registration database may make it unconstitutional.

Then you limit the use of the database so that it is constitutional (as I've suggested - solely to match crime guns to owners and criminals to their guns).

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 100):
It sounds like the same arguments that were used to justify poll taxes, which has been explicitly shot down in the courts as a violation of the 14th Amendment right to equal protection

Except that a gun is physical property, which by nature has costs associated with it. Any registration costs would simply become part of those costs. A vote is not physical property, but rather an abstract concept, and thus can't be treated the same way.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 101):
registration costs would simply become part of those costs.


I just love how because someone does not want someone else to have something (in this case guns) since they cannot stop you from having a gun (since it is guaranteed in the constitution that you can have guns) we will just make it more expensive for them to have a gun and maybe it will deter them from having one. The only problem with this is that the criminals will continue to get all the guns they want since they will not be registering them anywhere since they are getting them from the black market and will continue to do so since that cannot be stopped the same as the drug trade cannot be stopped.

Registration is just a way for the governments (state or federal) to make revenue, and for them to know what you own, which is BS. The government does NOT need to know what I buy, own, or any other parts of my personnel business.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 101):
Then you limit the use of the database so that it is constitutional

Until the next Congress or the one after that or even the one after that is seated and decides that it's ok to take away a certain class of weapons.

Sorry, a registration is the first step to confiscation. Maybe not this year or this decade, but so long as that database exists, there is a very real threat of confiscation.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 102):
I just love how because someone does not want someone else to have something (in this case guns) since they cannot stop you from having a gun (since it is guaranteed in the constitution that you can have guns) we will just make it more expensive for them to have a gun and maybe it will deter them from having one.

I just love how because some people want to something they think they should be able to use it everywhere and every time without responsibilities. How when they are told to be responsible they cry about how other people are saying so only because they are jealous, scared or some other outlandish claim instead of stepping up and dealing with the consequences.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 102):
The only problem with this is that the criminals will continue to get all the guns they want since they will not be registering them anywhere since they are getting them from the black market and will continue to do so since that cannot be stopped the same as the drug trade cannot be stopped.

The "only problem", is that your assumption is wrong.

Without a steady supply of cheap guns from "legal" gun owners the price will skyrocket and with that the number of guns used during crime will go down.


User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
I just love how because some people want to something they think they should be able to use it everywhere and every time without responsibilities.

So, tell me where I said anything about not being responsible, didn't think so, thanks for the words in my mouth though.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Without a steady supply of cheap guns from "legal" gun owners the price will skyrocket and with that the number of guns used during crime will go down.

Nice theory, now lets try reality. Do you actually think they care how much they cost when they are using drug money to buy them.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days ago) and read 2506 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
I just love how because some people want to something they think they should be able to use it everywhere and every time without responsibilities.

You mean the level of responsibility that you deem fit...not the level that is currently set by law.

If you want gun owners and/or carriers to assume more responsibilities, lobby your elected representatives and have them run up the pole. See what happens.

The vast majority of legal, responsible gun owners follow the various, laws concerning them and their guns. I'd hazard to say that a substantial number of them go above and beyond the legal requirements.

But, you and others, want more and more, so that eventually, it becomes so burdensome to own or carry a gun, that most would rather not jump through the hoops, or worse, most would not be able to jump through the hoops.

Quoting cmf (Reply 104):
Without a steady supply of cheap guns from "legal" gun owners the price will skyrocket and with that the number of guns used during crime will go down.

The number of gun crimes might go down, but there was that Harvard study that suggested that violent crime might go up. But, that's ok, because the guns will be "gone".   



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 102):
The only problem with this is that the criminals will continue to get all the guns they want since they will not be registering them anywhere since they are getting them from the black market

What you're missing is that registration will, over time, dry up the supply going to the black market, since anyone who sells onto the black market will be easily identifiable should the gun ever be recovered at a crime scene or during a raid.


Quoting fr8mech (Reply 103):
Until the next Congress or the one after that or even the one after that is seated and decides that it's ok to take away a certain class of weapons.

It wouldn't be Congress doing that, it would be the courts.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 103):
Sorry, a registration is the first step to confiscation. Maybe not this year or this decade, but so long as that database exists, there is a very real threat of confiscation.

Let's be honest here: there are some people who should have their guns taken away. If you're a legal gun owner and you one day develop a mental illness that would make you ineligible to pass a background check to purchase a new gun, should you really be able to keep the guns you already have? If you're a legal gun owner who has a court order placed against them because they threatened someone else with their gun, should you be able to keep that gunt? If we're trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them to hurt others, it's only logical that that should extend to guns that are already in their hands. I'm not suggesting that permanent confiscation would be appropriate in either of the scenarios I described, but a temporary measure would seem very prudent.

Obviously, this does not apply to the vast majority of gun owners in this country (i.e. those who could pass a background check), and we do have a court system to protect people's rights. So I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 105):
Do you actually think they care how much they cost when they are using drug money to buy them.

Maybe not, but fewer guns going to the black market means fewer guns available to criminals, which we can all agree is a good thing. Paying more for a gun doesn't grant it any extra capabilties.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 105):
Nice theory, now lets try reality. Do you actually think they care how much they cost when they are using drug money to buy them.

Yes, for some criminals, it won't make a difference. But if it cost $100 to buy a gun instead of $50 (for example), fewer people will be buying them.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2482 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 107):
It wouldn't be Congress doing that, it would be the courts.

Which, in my opinion is worse. It's the reason why we should not have a database.

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 108):
But if it cost $100 to buy a gun instead of $50 (for example), fewer people will be buying them.

Or, more people would have to be "rolled" before a criminal will be able to get a gun. Look, I'm all for keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. We do that by enforcing our current laws, repealing the laws that don't work and making smart, targeted laws that hit the criminals and not the law-abiding.

A registration can be looked at as a presumption of guilt. It can be used as a tool of intimidation.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 109):
A registration can be looked at as a presumption of guilt. It can be used as a tool of intimidation.

Like asking for ID at the ballot box?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2474 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think I might have mentioned this in a thread before but why don't you just amend the 2nd amendment again? It's already been done once then the laws can be made to what's reasonable without being tied to outdated ideals thought up in an era of muskets and cannons.

Fred


User currently offlineSmittyone From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 111):
I think I might have mentioned this in a thread before but why don't you just amend the 2nd amendment again? It's already been done once then the laws can be made to what's reasonable without being tied to outdated ideals thought up in an era of muskets and cannons.

Fred

Because it is a relatively challenging thing to accomplish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article..._of_the_United_States_Constitution


Those who are not happy with the 2nd Amendment just don't have the votes to change it. There are millions of gun owners in the United States who support the rights currently protected by the 2nd Amendment (and specifically the Heller decision).

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 105):
So, tell me where I said anything about not being responsible, didn't think so, thanks for the words in my mouth though.

I'm sorry, obviously only you are allowed to put words in other peoples mouths. Like how you claim they want to make it more expensive just to deter others from having guns....

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 105):
Nice theory, now lets try reality. Do you actually think they care how much they cost when they are using drug money to buy them.

Oh please. The drug related shootings are not done by the people making money. They got smarter. Wan't to know how it was like when those making money didn't care about using weapons then look at Miami during the 70's and 80's.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
not the level that is currently set by law.

Why we have discussions about gun-control.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
The vast majority of legal, responsible gun owners follow the various, laws concerning them and their guns. I'd hazard to say that a substantial number of them go above and beyond the legal requirements.

No doubt. yet they are the source for illegal weapons.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
But, you and others, want more and more, so that eventually, it becomes so burdensome to own or carry a gun, that most would rather not jump through the hoops, or worse, most would not be able to jump through the hoops.

I want everyone with a weapon to be proficient in handling it. Something they are not after the 4 hour course NRA think is enough. It doesn't take jumping through hoops. But it certainly takes more than the stupid shoot first castle laws gunners are pushing.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 106):
The number of gun crimes might go down, but there was that Harvard study that suggested that violent crime might go up. But, that's ok, because the guns will be "gone".

A lot of might's there. What is clear is that the number of murders go down with less guns around.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 109):
A registration can be looked at as a presumption of guilt. It can be used as a tool of intimidation.

Or it can more accurately be looked at as a tool to keep guns out of the hands of those who are likely to do harm with them.

It's certainly not a presumption of guilt, and the case for it being a tool of intimidation is very shaky.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

Perfect example of what we are talking about right here.

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/1...er-facebook-photo-of-childs-rifle/


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 115):
Perfect example of what we are talking about right here.

Is it? Did they confiscate any guns?

It is easy to make an article to say what you want. Then top it off with a half truth to get people up in arms. I'm sure most who complain about this would scream just as much if they had not responded to the call and something happened to the kid.

Taking events as per the article there is no doubt they overstepped by trying to make a search without a warrant. But there is a lot of info missing. We don't know what was said on the call prompting the response. We only have one version of how the attempted search was done.Staying with data as presented I do think the government officials should be held accountable for overstepping. Just as I think every gun owner overstepping should be held accountable.

If you think that a single, or even a few events like this justify not doing the right thing then you must hold gun owners to the same "no mistakes" requirement. Further, you need to stop having one set of requirements for guns and a different set for everything else. If you think this is an indication we can't trust government then time to stop using the rights granted by the second amendment just to carry weapons whenever you please and actually stand up to the government as you claim the second amendment is about..

   done
time for   


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 110):

It's actually analogous to what we do when transferring guns (when using a dealer, and what would happen with universal background check), you are verifying the identity of the person. Something we do millions of times a day across the country.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 111):

Because those that would limit our rights under The Second Amendment don't have anywhere near the support that would be neccessary to make that happen. Not even close.

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 115):

Scary, huh? An agent of the state refusing to even identify herself, yet threatening the citizen. Tyranny, anybody?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 118, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 117):
Scary, huh? An agent of the state refusing to even identify herself, yet threatening the citizen. Tyranny, anybody?

What agent of the state refused to identify herself?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 115):
Perfect example of what we are talking about right here.

I note that whether or not there was registration would not have made a difference in whether that happened or not.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2373 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 118):

Sorry, I thought he posted the link I had read. Try this one:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/art...un-photo-4368116.php#ixzz2O5Z3yizW

Or this one:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...m=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 121, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 101):

Except that a gun is physical property, which by nature has costs associated with it.

And casting a vote doesn't have costs associated with it?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 122, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 120):
Sorry, I thought he posted the link I had read. Try this one:

Didn't know if there was some missing info, you wanted the person who made the call come forward or something else. The additional article certainly cleared it up.

Don't know that I require every person to state first and last name but they certainly should provide info to verify who they are and be identifiable, e.g. badge number instead of name.

But my above comments still stand. This isn't a reason to hold back on doing the right things just because there is some abuse. Just as we will not remove all weapons just because there is some abuse. We need to deal with the abuse instead of considering it par for the course.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 123, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 121):
And casting a vote doesn't have costs associated with it?

A vote is an abstract concept, and thus cannot have costs associated with it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 124, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 123):
A vote is an abstract concept, and thus cannot have costs associated with it.

So voting equipment is free? The poll workers are paid in "abstract" money?

Yes, the actual vote is free, in so much as you don't have to pay to cast it, but the process is certainly far from free. And, we all pay it...at least those of us that pay taxes.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Reply 125, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 124):
Yes, the actual vote is free, in so much as you don't have to pay to cast it, but the process is certainly far from free.

As is the process of obtaining a gun. And that's before you actually pay for the gun.

You want a critical difference between voting rights and gun ownership rights? There is no right to have a gun, in the sense that you can't show up to a gun dealer and say "look, I'm flat broke, but I have the right to keep and bear arms, so in order to respect my rights you have to give me one of your cheapest model for free". Whereas you can be flat broke and still show up at the polls and have the right to vote.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2330 times:

And how would registering guns actually make society "safer" It doesn't. Because bad guys will still be bad guys.

Voter ID I'm for it. Why should an illegal alien be able to go to the poll and say they are me and cast a vote?

I have to supply a photo ID when I purchase a gun.

So that argument is stupid.

Comparing gun registration to vehicle registration is bogus as well. For one your average gun owner isn't out using his gun in public spaces on a regular basis like a car. Second you don't leave your gun unattended at the curb like you do a car. Registration of vehicles goes to helping maintain roads and programs. What would the money from gun registrations go towards?

Also the who purpose of the 2A is to give the people the power to overthrow the govt when needed. Plain and simple. What is the first thing a tyranical govt. does with a populace? Disarms them. Who are the first people to be disarmed? Those who are on a list of some sort. It's not tin foil hat/brainwashing it's reality. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 127, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting kingairta (Reply 126):
Second you don't leave your gun unattended at the curb like you do a car.

Careful there. There are a few folks here that think that if the firearm isn't in an alarmed safe at all times, you may as well be handing it to a criminal.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 128, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2319 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 126):
Voter ID I'm for it. Why should an illegal alien be able to go to the poll and say they are me and cast a vote?

I have to supply a photo ID when I purchase a gun.

Well the ID is intended to prove your registration. No?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 126):
What would the money from gun registrations go towards?

Gun safety programs would be a good one.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 126):
Also the who purpose of the 2A is to give the people the power to overthrow the govt when needed. Plain and simple. What is the first thing a tyranical govt. does with a populace? Disarms them. Who are the first people to be disarmed? Those who are on a list of some sort. It's not tin foil hat/brainwashing it's reality. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.

So you think this can happen with voting too? why keep a list of voters? it can only be used for intimidation.. This is the "tin foil" part of the argument.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 127):
There are a few folks here that think that if the firearm isn't in an alarmed safe at all times, you may as well be handing it to a criminal.

Some people here (an in Arizona) think that just beaus they are brown and drive a crappy car, you are an illegal alien and need to produce your immigration papers on demand

[Edited 2013-03-21 12:12:17]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2320 times:

You need a list of voters to ensure people only cast one vote. How hard is that to understand?

Please tell me how gun registration is a good thing?


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 130, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2317 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 129):
You need a list of voters to ensure people only cast one vote. How hard is that to understand?

Oh - i thought it also supposed to keep illegals from voting too. So as long as illegals only vote once; its OK?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 131, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Quoting kingairta (Reply 129):
You need a list of voters to ensure people only cast one vote. How hard is that to understand?

Oh - i thought it also supposed to keep illegals from voting too. So as long as illegals only vote once; its OK?

What it can't do both?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 129):
Please tell me how gun registration is a good thing?

I like how you avoided my question.

You haven't a clue. You just want to argue to argue.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 132, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 131):
What it can't do both?

Right - so why cant gun registration help keep guns from people who should not have them? Just like voter registration is intended to keep illegals from voting.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 131):
I like how you avoided my question.

See above.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 131):
You haven't a clue. You just want to argue to argue.

   sigh..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2310 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 132):
Right - so why cant gun registration help keep guns from people who should not have them? Just like voter registration is intended to keep illegals from voting

So you think that every thug who already has a gun and doesn't give a damn about laws will suddenly go and register his fire arm?

So no it won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The only way it will work is if you can magically make every firearm vanish and start fresh.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 134, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 133):
So no it won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Was Adam Lanza a criminal before he went to Sandy Hook?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2309 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 134):
Was Adam Lanza a criminal before he went to Sandy Hook?

I guess you missed the part that he stole the weapons he used. So much for laws against stealing ehh?

How would registration have prevented SH?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 136, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2304 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 128):
Some people here (an in Arizona) think that just beaus they are brown and drive a crappy car, you are an illegal alien and need to produce your immigration papers on demand

Deflection, again.

We understand that you have a hard-on with Arizona's attempts to get the illegal immigration problem under control, but this is a question about gun-control, not illegal immigration control. Now, if you can prove that somehow illegal aliens are legally purchasing firearms, we can visit the question.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 128):
This is the "tin foil" part of the argument.

You know what...I'm tired of this depiction. Question: why were the Bill of Rights passed? Specifically, why were The First, Second and Fourth Amendments written and passed?

They were passed, as were the others to keep a check on government. So that government activities could be monitored and questioned. So that if a tyrannical government were to rise up, it would have to do it in full view of the public.

These are the very same reasons that people use when the support the First Amendment's free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government and that almighty, freedom of the press. And no one bats an eye.

But, when someone uses the same rationale for supporting and defending The Second Amendment, they are seen as crack-pots, they are seen as dangerous, they are seen as threats to peace and civility, they are seen as potential terrorists, they are seen as the "tin foil" brigade. And with that last, ad-hominem attack, their opponents attempt to dismiss the argument.

So, if you believe that The First Amendment, among the others, helps us stave off a tyrannical government, I fail to see how you can not believe the same for The Second Amendment.

So, just like I don't register to exercise my right of free speech, I don't register to exercise my right to religion, I don't register to exercise my right to access "the free press", I don't register my right to form associations with like minded people, I should not have to register to exercise my rights under The Second Amendment. The fact that I'm a citizen in good standing is registration enough.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 137, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2304 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 135):

I guess you missed the part that he stole the weapons he used. So much for laws against stealing ehh?

'They belonged to his mother. Would stricter registration made her mother been stopped for purchasing those guns in the first place?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 135):
How would registration have prevented SH?

How about, registering all people who have access to your guns? That would have.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 138, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 136):
We understand that you have a hard-on with Arizona's attempts to get the illegal immigration problem under control, but this is a question about gun-control, not illegal immigration control.

Yet both have fundamental roots in the Constitution. Its a question on how you treat the Constitution in General. Isn't that the main argument against Gun Control, the 2nd Amendment? You believe in the Constitution or you don't. Simple as that. You cant pick and choose which parts of it you like and which you don't.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 136):
So, just like I don't register to exercise my right of free speech, I don't register to exercise my right to religion, I don't register to exercise my right to access "the free press", I don't register my right to form associations with like minded people, I should not have to register to exercise my rights under The Second Amendment. The fact that I'm a citizen in good standing is registration enough.

Perfect argument against Voter registration (ID) anti-immigrant laws like the ones in AZ. Kudos! Welcome to my respected users list!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
They belonged to his mother. Would stricter registration made her mother been stopped for purchasing those guns in the first place?

Why would she be stopped from buying a firearm in the first place? Was she a convicted felon barred from owning a firearm?

Wouldn't change the fact he STOLE the fire arms.

No amount of legislation will stop bad people from being bad people. How bout this. Tim Mcveigh killed more people without the use of a fire arm. The idiot not to be named because it's exactly what he wanted was to be a celebrity would have found another method to kill as many as possible. Idiot picked a school because it was an easy target.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 140, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days ago) and read 2298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 139):
Why would she be stopped from buying a firearm in the first place? Was she a convicted felon barred from owning a firearm?

Was she? i don't know? was she mentally unstable? - did you know her?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 139):
No amount of legislation will stop bad people from being bad people.

Agreed. Any reason to make it easier for them?

Listen, if you feel like 20 children are mere collateral damage so that you can run around pretending you are in a real life version of "Halo" in your backyard - that your prerogative.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 140):
Listen, if you feel like 20 children are mere collateral damage so that you can run around pretending you are in a real life version of "Halo" in your backyard - that your prerogative.

Your argument is over. You are now attacking ME because you have no where else to go.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 142, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 141):
Your argument is over. You are now attacking ME because you have no where else to go.

Oh i dint know you did run around with 20 guns on your backyard. I apologize. I though i was putting up a complete exaggeration. I guess that really are people like that! You learn something every day.  

In any case; it wasn't meant as personal attack. But it true isnt it? the argument of "bad people will be bad regardless of what you do" is silly. You are advocating simply giving up.

Cars are gonna crash anyways; why put brakes?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 142):
In any case; it wasn't meant as personal attack.

It damn well was and you know it.

Saying I don't care that innocent children lost their lives because I don't agree with you. That is uncalled for.


Show me how I'm advocating giving up?

Because I said bad people will do bad things? Gun registration won't stop people from being bad. Idiot could have just as easily made an IED and drove a box truck into a crowd and killed just as many.

We need to stop blaming the tools and blaming the wielder.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 144, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting kingairta (Reply 143):
Idiot could have just as easily made an IED and drove a box truck into a crowd and killed just as many.

But he did not did he? He used a guns.


Quoting kingairta (Reply 143):
We need to stop blaming the tools and blaming the wielder.
OK - this is good; let keep on this point: how do you control the wielder?

[Edited 2013-03-21 13:47:52]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

By identifying who needs mental help and ensuring they get the help they need.

Which has nothing to do with gun registration no matter how you try and spin it. Because once again his mother legally owned the weapons and her grown son stole them (committed a crime) so he could commit a crime. Her having her guns registered would not prevent him from stealing in the first place.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 146, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2282 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 145):
Which has nothing to do with gun registration no matter how you try and spin it. Because once again his mother legally owned the weapons and her grown son stole them (committed a crime) so he could commit a crime. Her having her guns registered would not prevent him from stealing in the first place.

So you are saying that his crime was unstoppable? That's giving up.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 145):
By identifying who needs mental help and ensuring they get the help they need.

OK , good again - so if someone need mental help should they be allowed to have weapons? In general, not necessarily in the SH case



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1574 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2279 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 133):
So you think that every thug who already has a gun and doesn't give a damn about laws will suddenly go and register his fire arm?

Drug takers will find drugs so you may as well legalise them all.

Fred


User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 146):
So you are saying that his crime was unstoppable? That's giving up.

Not giving up just directing efforts in a more productive direction.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 146):
OK , good again - so if someone need mental help should they be allowed to have weapons? In general, not necessarily in the SH case

Have you ever tried to purchase a firearm?

A NICS check will show those who have been determined mentally unstable from purchasing a fire arm. That is already in place and if you missed it the system actually worked in regards to idiot. Records showed that he tried to purchase a firearm and was refused because his NICS check said he was not allowed. Then since idiot couldn't legally obtain the fire arms he wanted he went to the place he knew he could steal them from.

So again registering a legally purchased firearm would not prevent such incidents.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 149, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 148):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 146):
So you are saying that his crime was unstoppable? That's giving up.

Not giving up just directing efforts in a more productive direction.

So you accept that it was unstoppable?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 148):

A NICS check will show those who have been determined mentally unstable from purchasing a fire arm

Excellent! You are hitting all the good marks!. What about those who have yet to be determined to be mentally unstable? or those who do not frequent a mental health professional?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2274 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 149):
So you accept that it was unstoppable?

Given hindsight and what idiot was doing with the spreadsheet of all the mass murders of the past yes he was unstoppable. It might not have been an elementary school but it would have been a large group of people.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 149):
What about those who have yet to be determined to be mentally unstable? or those who do not frequent a mental health professional?

That is where the energy needs to go. And as I have shown gun registration won't stop violence.

Something else to think of Chicago and DC have some of if not the most strict gun laws in the nation and yet they have the highest gun violence rates in the country. Explain that.

[Edited 2013-03-21 23:12:23 by wilco737]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 151, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2267 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 150):

Given hindsight and what idiot was doing with the spreadsheet of all the mass murders of the past yes he was unstoppable. It might not have been an elementary school but it would have been a large group of people.

Ok Unstoppable.Would have a

See.. man you are easy to talk to. .so would a single teacher with 45 be able to stop him?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 150):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 149):
What about those who have yet to be determined to be mentally unstable? or those who do not frequent a mental health professional?

That is where the energy needs to go. And as I have shown gun registration won't stop violence

Oh yes it can if registration includes some some sort of mental evaluation..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 152, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2273 times:

Quoting kingairta (Reply 126):

And how would registering guns actually make society "safer" It doesn't. Because bad guys will still be bad guys.

Because a large number of all guns sold to criminals are through straw sales in the last three years. As it stands today there is no way to tie a weapon to the last legal owner. With registration there is a way to tie it to an owner who is held responsible for the weapons registered to her.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 127):
Careful there. There are a few folks here that think that if the firearm isn't in an alarmed safe at all times, you may as well be handing it to a criminal.

Dishonest description of what I have stated, again.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 139):
No amount of legislation will stop bad people from being bad people.

Really. Let us see your full argument supporting this conclusion. This will be fun.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 145):
Her having her guns registered would not prevent him from stealing in the first place.

There isn't a miracle solution that covers every situation. This situation is about proper storage. Something that apparently isn't needed.


User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 153, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 153):
Because a large number of all guns sold to criminals are through straw sales in the last three years. As it stands today there is no way to tie a weapon to the last legal owner. With registration there is a way to tie it to an owner who is held responsible for the weapons registered to her.

The only way to make registration work and accomplish what people want is to magically make all fire arms vanish and start fresh. There is too many guns in peoples hands who care less what the laws say. Registration won't curtail crimes at all.

Quoting cmf (Reply 153):
Really. Let us see your full argument supporting this conclusion. This will be fun.

See above. Again I'll ask you as well Chicago and DC have the toughest gun laws in the country yet they have the highest crime rates. Please explain why that is.

Quoting cmf (Reply 153):
There isn't a miracle solution that covers every situation. This situation is about proper storage. Something that apparently isn't needed.

Proponents for registration think it is a miracle solution. There are laws in place in regards to firearm storage when minors are living in the same house. Also all firearms sold today are to be sold with a lock of some sort.


User currently offlineCalebWilliams From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting kingairta (Reply 154):
See above. Again I'll ask you as well Chicago and DC have the toughest gun laws in the country yet they have the highest crime rates. Please explain why that is.

No, you explain it. It is you (and other pro-gun people) that bring this point up. (Again and again.)

I can put out any coincidence I want: Why are the presidents of the United States and Zimbabwe both black? Why do the sons of Joe Kennedy, Sr. always seem to be assassinated? Why are people from the South so ignorant and poorly educated? Some are just stereotypes: why are Asians better at Math? Why do [group of people] do [action]?

Again, can you please provide some proof for assertion.



Caleb Williams MSP AUS STL AMS CPH LGW YYZ
User currently offlinekingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting CalebWilliams (Reply 155):
No, you explain it. It is you (and other pro-gun people) that bring this point up. (Again and again.)

I can put out any coincidence I want: Why are the presidents of the United States and Zimbabwe both black? Why do the sons of Joe Kennedy, Sr. always seem to be assassinated? Why are people from the South so ignorant and poorly educated? Some are just stereotypes: why are Asians better at Math? Why do [group of people] do [action]?

Again, can you please provide some proof for assertion.

Educate your self on the gun laws in those two cities. Recently the USSC overturned an out right ban on hand guns in both those cities.

Just look at the statistics and tell me it's pure coincedence. Your telling me that the FBI tweaks their information to fit a stereotype?

From the FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...me-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4

I'm not going to list all the laws of Illinois if you are really interested in the topic you will educate yourself prior to forming an opinion that is forced on you through the lamestream media.

If gun bans additional laws were the answer then tell me why the UK is #1 in violent crimes in the world at the rate of 2,034/100,000. And number two in all crimes for the EU at 10,872/100,000?

The US is #1 in gun ownership yet it doesn't even crack the top 10 for violent crimes at 466/100,000 and a gun murder rate of 2.97/100,000. Total crime 3,959/100,000.

Also you think the spike in violent crimes in the UK and their gun ban is pure coincedence?

Also explain to me why the UK saw a 19% increase in murders by gun if guns were banned? Since the ban took affect.
Or how about armed robberies with a 69% increase and assualt with fire arm increase of 28%?

I'll tell you why. Because the criminals didn't comply with the gun ban/gun laws and are taking advantage of unarmed citizens.

[Edited 2013-03-21 23:14:03 by wilco737]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6593 posts, RR: 6
Reply 156, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kingairta (Reply 158):
I'll tell you why. Because the criminals didn't comply with the gun ban/gun laws and are taking advantage of unarmed citizens.

So, tell us about violent crime in Japan.. Tell us abou their gun laws too

PS. I like how you ignore my last post  



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 157, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 138):
Perfect argument against Voter registration (ID) anti-immigrant laws like the ones in AZ. Kudos! Welcome to my respected users list!

Except that it isn't. We register to vote in order to assure that we are eligible to vote and to assure we vote in the right place. We would like to check ID at the polls to ensure that the person voting is the person registered. If it were even remotely feasible, I would rather skip the whole registration process and just have the person show up at the poll, present his ID and that person issued a ballot. No registration at all. But, we don't have a real national ID that confirms identity.

And, by the way...AZ's laws, among others, is an anti-illegal immigrant law, not an anti-immigrant law. Signed: a proud LEGAL immigrant to the US.

We check ID when we buy guns in order to ensure that the person who is buying the gun is eligible to buy the gun. That's all.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 158, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting kingairta (Reply 154):
The only way to make registration work and accomplish what people want is to magically make all fire arms vanish and start fresh. There is too many guns in peoples hands who care less what the laws say. Registration won't curtail crimes at all.

No, there is no magic in registration. It works but it needs time. It takes time because there are a lot of guns out there. But it gets worse the longer we wait.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 154):
See above. Again I'll ask you as well Chicago and DC have the toughest gun laws in the country yet they have the highest crime rates. Please explain why that is.

Since you are such an expert why don't you explain how it is a direct correlation to the gun laws.

Quoting kingairta (Reply 154):
Proponents for registration think it is a miracle solution. There are laws in place in regards to firearm storage when minors are living in the same house. Also all firearms sold today are to be sold with a lock of some sort.

No we don't. We think it is part of the solution. You are very loose with the data you spout out. What does it matter that a lock is required when the weapon is sold if there isn't a requirement to use it?

Quoting kingairta (Reply 156):
Educate your self on the gun laws in those two cities. Recently the USSC overturned an out right ban on hand guns in both those cities.

Since you are so educated please inform us about how it is a direct correlation to the gun laws and nothing else. Please provide evidence that looser gun laws will reduce the number of murders in those two cities.