America's Gun Violence

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The majority of NRA members support what Obama has enacted. They have supported that for years. It's the leadership of the NRA that is insane.

In that case, it's pretty weird that the NRA has as many members as it does.

Not really. What Obama passed is no big deal. When and if he starts to try to ban guns Then you will see the power of the nra.

dudeman

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

InHiding80 said:

If only both sides followed Colorado by legalizing pot since it helped lower crime within a year. It would put an end to this petty bickering and cherry picking of the issue on BOTH sides. I'm all for Bernie Sanders but if there's one issue I disagree with him and socialists on, it's rewriting the constitution.

why? it's a living document. it's meant to be rewritten as the times change.

What should the Second Amendment say if it were to be rewritten?

It doesn't need rewritten. It says "well regulated" and that is all we are trying to achieve.

"Well regulated" by what means? Please be specific.

For a start we would be well served to understand by what definitions was intended by the language of the day.

In my view 2A needs applied in its full context. Scalia seems to have made null the first part. Which is not in his power to do.

To my mind a well regulated militia in the modern era is fullfilled by the national guard who are under the command of the individual governors.

Do you think private gun ownership by the individual should be abolished, then?

dudeman

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

dudeman

Gern Blansten said:

The majority of NRA members support what Obama has enacted. They have supported that for years. It's the leadership of the NRA that is insane.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of background checks for private sales.

dudeman

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

ldent42 said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

I understand the rationale, but I cannot get behind a right to carry bill. Lol I'm not saying you're wrong, if all gun owners were vetted and licensed I could understand the rationale, but I'm still like ".....no." cuz guns are scary

That's the tricky part. Gun Control advocates want to ask for concessions from the Pro 2A side but don't want to make any concessions on their end. Pro-gunners aren't really excited to give an inch for fear of a mile being taken.

I understand, but I kinda feel like "less people getting shot" is something we can all agree is a win-win. I kinda feel like it's less about the give and take over the law and more about, Hey let's make our country less deadly.

We are certainly in agreement that less people getting shot is better. The give and take over the law is where the details on how to accomplish that exist.

I don't expect to see anything close to a consensus on what will actually work.

pickupyourwill

My brother in-law just posted the dumbest thing on his facebook page. I tried to copy it but can't find any way to keep his name off it. It shows a list of the last 5 presidents and how many people were killed by mass shootings--Obama being the most. Then it made some stupid comment about blah blah blah under his watch. My in-law is very Republican. This is the kind of stupid shit I see over Facebook all the time living in a narrow-minded part of the Midwest. I may have some of my own issues but at least I don't blame every little thing on the President like many of the Republicans do. Its like the commandment to honor your mother and father. You should do the same for your President--for the sake of peace--even if you didn't vote for him. Its about showing some respect for the country's leader. He needs some support. The country can't run on criticism alone. At some point, everyone needs to come together on some issues--like with the terrorist attack in Paris--but then a week later they were back to slandering Obama again. I'm glad that he is making progress with the gun issue.

mickeyrat

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

InHiding80 said:

If only both sides followed Colorado by legalizing pot since it helped lower crime within a year. It would put an end to this petty bickering and cherry picking of the issue on BOTH sides. I'm all for Bernie Sanders but if there's one issue I disagree with him and socialists on, it's rewriting the constitution.

why? it's a living document. it's meant to be rewritten as the times change.

What should the Second Amendment say if it were to be rewritten?

It doesn't need rewritten. It says "well regulated" and that is all we are trying to achieve.

"Well regulated" by what means? Please be specific.

For a start we would be well served to understand by what definitions was intended by the language of the day.

In my view 2A needs applied in its full context. Scalia seems to have made null the first part. Which is not in his power to do.

To my mind a well regulated militia in the modern era is fullfilled by the national guard who are under the command of the individual governors.

Do you think private gun ownership by the individual should be abolished, then?

No, but specific to the amendment my belief is what I laid out.

For private ownership, what you, mcgruff and others have laid out should be the requirement prior to taking possession. Something along the lines of an expiring license similar to a driver's license. As well as documented ongoing training in order to retain licensing at renewal. Insurance requirements as well.


You do agree there are far too many dumbfucks with no business being in possession who currently have unfettered access dont you? Its those folks who are fucking it up and are the real problem.


In some respects NRA is coming across as progun in criminals hands. They certainly seem to block or threaten those who would put in place obstacles to criminal access.
I think in reality they now represent manufactures more than their members as a whole.

rgambs

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who is going to make dozens of straw man purchases and send the guns on the iron pipeline knowing that those purchases will be registered and those guns will be tied to them?? Until we know who to hold accountable for providing weapons to criminals all other measures are a waste of time.
Why does the government need to know if you own a gun???? Is that a real question? The same reason they need to know you have a dog, car, a business, etc...because those things can pose a mortal danger to other citizens who have just as many rights as you.
I better unregister my car, they are going to confiscate it apparently.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

mickeyrat said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

InHiding80 said:

If only both sides followed Colorado by legalizing pot since it helped lower crime within a year. It would put an end to this petty bickering and cherry picking of the issue on BOTH sides. I'm all for Bernie Sanders but if there's one issue I disagree with him and socialists on, it's rewriting the constitution.

why? it's a living document. it's meant to be rewritten as the times change.

What should the Second Amendment say if it were to be rewritten?

It doesn't need rewritten. It says "well regulated" and that is all we are trying to achieve.

"Well regulated" by what means? Please be specific.

For a start we would be well served to understand by what definitions was intended by the language of the day.

In my view 2A needs applied in its full context. Scalia seems to have made null the first part. Which is not in his power to do.

To my mind a well regulated militia in the modern era is fullfilled by the national guard who are under the command of the individual governors.

Do you think private gun ownership by the individual should be abolished, then?

No, but specific to the amendment my belief is what I laid out.

For private ownership, what you, mcgruff and others have laid out should be the requirement prior to taking possession. Something along the lines of an expiring license similar to a driver's license. As well as documented ongoing training in order to retain licensing at renewal. Insurance requirements as well.


You do agree there are far too many dumbfucks with no business being in possession who currently have unfettered access dont you? Its those folks who are fucking it up and are the real problem.


In some respects NRA is coming across as progun in criminals hands. They certainly seem to block or threaten those who would put in place obstacles to criminal access.
I think in reality they now represent manufactures more than their members as a whole.

I also have zero problem with ongoing training. In order to maintain my teaching certificate I have to accumulate 20 professional development hours a year. Hell I had to take a class in order to drive a freaking jet ski in the State of NJ! lol. So why not make a law requiring 5 hours (more/less?) a year of continuing firearms training?
It is the dumbfucks that ruin it for the majority of us.

dudeman

The point is that criminals will not register their guns. Do you really believe that a felon buying a Glock on the black market is going to run to the authorities, get fingerprinted, provide a photo ID and have them record the serial number of his illegal gun? Do you expect the system implemented by the government to not be a total clusterfuck?

Also, it's already illegal to provide firearms to criminals and it's already illegal for felons to own firearms. Maybe we suspend "unlawful search and seizure" rules for convicted felons. If they're found in possession of a firearm, they go back to prison.

And yes, asking why the government needs to know about my guns is a real question. I pose no threat to anyone. I've never even had a speeding or parking ticket. I secure my possessions responsibly and I know and respect the power of firearms. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like a criminal in waiting.

Licensing businesses, dogs and cars are entirely different things. These things are licensed for revenue purposes. For dogs, licenses help to know who's door to knock on if someone gets bitten. After the fact. The license doesn't prevent anything on its own. Responsible ownership, care and training are what prevent dog attacks.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that my views are "absolutely ridiculous". I respect that. However, I am entitled to my opinion that your views are misguided and naive.

We can still be friends though.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who is going to make dozens of straw man purchases and send the guns on the iron pipeline knowing that those purchases will be registered and those guns will be tied to them?? Until we know who to hold accountable for providing weapons to criminals all other measures are a waste of time.
Why does the government need to know if you own a gun???? Is that a real question? The same reason they need to know you have a dog, car, a business, etc...because those things can pose a mortal danger to other citizens who have just as many rights as you.
I better unregister my car, they are going to confiscate it apparently.

rgambs

dudeman said:

The point is that criminals will not register their guns. Do you really believe that a felon buying a Glock on the black market is going to run to the authorities, get fingerprinted, provide a photo ID and have them record the serial number of his illegal gun? Do you expect the system implemented by the government to not be a total clusterfuck?

Also, it's already illegal to provide firearms to criminals and it's already illegal for felons to own firearms. Maybe we suspend "unlawful search and seizure" rules for convicted felons. If they're found in possession of a firearm, they go back to prison.

And yes, asking why the government needs to know about my guns is a real question. I pose no threat to anyone. I've never even had a speeding or parking ticket. I secure my possessions responsibly and I know and respect the power of firearms. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like a criminal in waiting.

Licensing businesses, dogs and cars are entirely different things. These things are licensed for revenue purposes. For dogs, licenses help to know who's door to knock on if someone gets bitten. After the fact. The license doesn't prevent anything on its own. Responsible ownership, care and training are what prevent dog attacks.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that my views are "absolutely ridiculous". I respect that. However, I am entitled to my opinion that your views are misguided and naive.

We can still be friends though.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who is going to make dozens of straw man purchases and send the guns on the iron pipeline knowing that those purchases will be registered and those guns will be tied to them?? Until we know who to hold accountable for providing weapons to criminals all other measures are a waste of time.
Why does the government need to know if you own a gun???? Is that a real question? The same reason they need to know you have a dog, car, a business, etc...because those things can pose a mortal danger to other citizens who have just as many rights as you.
I better unregister my car, they are going to confiscate it apparently.

The criminals don't need to register, the gun will be registered to whomever purchased it, and they can then be held accountable for the guns they have purchased. It is a deterrent, and it will work to reduce illegal sales if the criminal purchasers actually think there is a chance they will be caught.
Licensing and registration have the same purpose with cars and dogs as they should with guns, to deter through accountability and provide some measure of control.
Everybody is treated like a criminal in waiting, that's the price of a society of laws.
Gunners don't realize nobody who isn't gun-nutty (keep in mind, I own guns) cares about the "poor me" pitty parade that "hobbyists" try to throw about how their jollies are in jeopardy and they as unfairly maligned. It is a huge turn off for everyone but the most pro-gun people.

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The majority of NRA members support what Obama has enacted. They have supported that for years. It's the leadership of the NRA that is insane.

In that case, it's pretty weird that the NRA has as many members as it does.

Not really. What Obama passed is no big deal. When and if he starts to try to ban guns Then you will see the power of the nra.

I meant because the NRA leadership is insane. Why don't the members all boycott them if they are so reasonable?

dudeman

It's a deterrent like going to prison for committing murder is a deterrent? Or being arrested for drunk driving? The same way the death penalty is a deterrent? I think you're overly optimistic in the power of laws as a deterrent to anything. We have no shortage of people committing crimes regardless of the laws. Look at Marijuana use. It's still illegal at the federal level but tons of people still use it.

And what about the over 300 million guns that have already been sold? Wouldn't the owners of those guns need to come forward to put their names and serial numbers on the registry? I doubt the drug dealers, terrorists, hate groups and gang bangers will be among those who own "legally registered" firearms.

Also, I'm not concerned that my "jollies" are in jeopardy. Guns aren't "jollies" to me. They are tools that, God forbid, I ever need to rely on to ensure the safety of myself or my family, will be available to me when I need them most.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

The point is that criminals will not register their guns. Do you really believe that a felon buying a Glock on the black market is going to run to the authorities, get fingerprinted, provide a photo ID and have them record the serial number of his illegal gun? Do you expect the system implemented by the government to not be a total clusterfuck?

Also, it's already illegal to provide firearms to criminals and it's already illegal for felons to own firearms. Maybe we suspend "unlawful search and seizure" rules for convicted felons. If they're found in possession of a firearm, they go back to prison.

And yes, asking why the government needs to know about my guns is a real question. I pose no threat to anyone. I've never even had a speeding or parking ticket. I secure my possessions responsibly and I know and respect the power of firearms. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like a criminal in waiting.

Licensing businesses, dogs and cars are entirely different things. These things are licensed for revenue purposes. For dogs, licenses help to know who's door to knock on if someone gets bitten. After the fact. The license doesn't prevent anything on its own. Responsible ownership, care and training are what prevent dog attacks.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that my views are "absolutely ridiculous". I respect that. However, I am entitled to my opinion that your views are misguided and naive.

We can still be friends though.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who is going to make dozens of straw man purchases and send the guns on the iron pipeline knowing that those purchases will be registered and those guns will be tied to them?? Until we know who to hold accountable for providing weapons to criminals all other measures are a waste of time.
Why does the government need to know if you own a gun???? Is that a real question? The same reason they need to know you have a dog, car, a business, etc...because those things can pose a mortal danger to other citizens who have just as many rights as you.
I better unregister my car, they are going to confiscate it apparently.

The criminals don't need to register, the gun will be registered to whomever purchased it, and they can then be held accountable for the guns they have purchased. It is a deterrent, and it will work to reduce illegal sales if the criminal purchasers actually think there is a chance they will be caught.
Licensing and registration have the same purpose with cars and dogs as they should with guns, to deter through accountability and provide some measure of control.
Everybody is treated like a criminal in waiting, that's the price of a society of laws.
Gunners don't realize nobody who isn't gun-nutty (keep in mind, I own guns) cares about the "poor me" pitty parade that "hobbyists" try to throw about how their jollies are in jeopardy and they as unfairly maligned. It is a huge turn off for everyone but the most pro-gun people.

mickeyrat

Dudeman please tell me then where it is criminals are gaining access. I dont think they ALL come from theft.

Also of those not stolen , who are we able to hold accountable for giving access?

dudeman

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The majority of NRA members support what Obama has enacted. They have supported that for years. It's the leadership of the NRA that is insane.

In that case, it's pretty weird that the NRA has as many members as it does.

Not really. What Obama passed is no big deal. When and if he starts to try to ban guns Then you will see the power of the nra.

I meant because the NRA leadership is insane. Why don't the members all boycott them if they are so reasonable?

They still do a lot of good for gun safety training programs, hunter's rights and they provide opposition to ridiculous attempts at gun control.

Not all gun control measures are unreasonable but a lot of them target poor people and minorities. The NRA leadership is not perfect. They are, however one of the few groups that are fighting to preserve our rights as Americans.

Like it or not, the right to own guns is a right for law-abiding citizens of the United States.

dudeman

mickeyrat said:

Dudeman please tell me then where it is criminals are gaining access. I dont think tey ALL come from theft.

In a survey of inmates currently serving sentences for gun-related crimes, most stated that they got their guns through theft, bought them on the black market or borrowed them from someone that they knew.

Yes, many crimes are committed with legally purchased firearms, as well. No one is denying that.

Gern Blansten

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The majority of NRA members support what Obama has enacted. They have supported that for years. It's the leadership of the NRA that is insane.

In that case, it's pretty weird that the NRA has as many members as it does.

Not really. What Obama passed is no big deal. When and if he starts to try to ban guns Then you will see the power of the nra.

That can't happen. Only Congress has that power and, as Obama said, he's only got another year in office.

Gern Blansten

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

The majority of NRA members support what Obama has enacted. They have supported that for years. It's the leadership of the NRA that is insane.

In that case, it's pretty weird that the NRA has as many members as it does.

Not really. What Obama passed is no big deal. When and if he starts to try to ban guns Then you will see the power of the nra.

I meant because the NRA leadership is insane. Why don't the members all boycott them if they are so reasonable?

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html

Remember this? Most members probably don't pay a lot of attention to the political BS. LaPierre should be hanged in Times Square. Just an absolute piece of shit human being.

rgambs

dudeman said:

It's a deterrent like going to prison for committing murder is a deterrent? Or being arrested for drunk driving? The same way the death penalty is a deterrent? I think you're overly optimistic in the power of laws as a deterrent to anything. We have no shortage of people committing crimes regardless of the laws. Look at Marijuana use. It's still illegal at the federal level but tons of people still use it.

And what about the over 300 million guns that have already been sold? Wouldn't the owners of those guns need to come forward to put their names and serial numbers on the registry? I doubt the drug dealers, terrorists, hate groups and gang bangers will be among those who own "legally registered" firearms.

Also, I'm not concerned that my "jollies" are in jeopardy. Guns aren't "jollies" to me. They are tools that, God forbid, I ever need to rely on to ensure the safety of myself or my family, will be available to me when I need them most.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

The point is that criminals will not register their guns. Do you really believe that a felon buying a Glock on the black market is going to run to the authorities, get fingerprinted, provide a photo ID and have them record the serial number of his illegal gun? Do you expect the system implemented by the government to not be a total clusterfuck?

Also, it's already illegal to provide firearms to criminals and it's already illegal for felons to own firearms. Maybe we suspend "unlawful search and seizure" rules for convicted felons. If they're found in possession of a firearm, they go back to prison.

And yes, asking why the government needs to know about my guns is a real question. I pose no threat to anyone. I've never even had a speeding or parking ticket. I secure my possessions responsibly and I know and respect the power of firearms. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like a criminal in waiting.

Licensing businesses, dogs and cars are entirely different things. These things are licensed for revenue purposes. For dogs, licenses help to know who's door to knock on if someone gets bitten. After the fact. The license doesn't prevent anything on its own. Responsible ownership, care and training are what prevent dog attacks.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that my views are "absolutely ridiculous". I respect that. However, I am entitled to my opinion that your views are misguided and naive.

We can still be friends though.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who is going to make dozens of straw man purchases and send the guns on the iron pipeline knowing that those purchases will be registered and those guns will be tied to them?? Until we know who to hold accountable for providing weapons to criminals all other measures are a waste of time.
Why does the government need to know if you own a gun???? Is that a real question? The same reason they need to know you have a dog, car, a business, etc...because those things can pose a mortal danger to other citizens who have just as many rights as you.
I better unregister my car, they are going to confiscate it apparently.

The criminals don't need to register, the gun will be registered to whomever purchased it, and they can then be held accountable for the guns they have purchased. It is a deterrent, and it will work to reduce illegal sales if the criminal purchasers actually think there is a chance they will be caught.
Licensing and registration have the same purpose with cars and dogs as they should with guns, to deter through accountability and provide some measure of control.
Everybody is treated like a criminal in waiting, that's the price of a society of laws.
Gunners don't realize nobody who isn't gun-nutty (keep in mind, I own guns) cares about the "poor me" pitty parade that "hobbyists" try to throw about how their jollies are in jeopardy and they as unfairly maligned. It is a huge turn off for everyone but the most pro-gun people.

Yes, exactly. Are you suggesting that we eliminate those laws since they aren't 100% effective?? Of course not, that would be foolish, just like resisting gun laws because they aren't 100% effective is foolish.
I know about a dozen people that don't smoke marijuana because it's illegality is a deterrent, and just about everyone who is honest will tell you that the reason they don't drive buzzed is because it's illegality is a deterrent

dudeman

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

It's a deterrent like going to prison for committing murder is a deterrent? Or being arrested for drunk driving? The same way the death penalty is a deterrent? I think you're overly optimistic in the power of laws as a deterrent to anything. We have no shortage of people committing crimes regardless of the laws. Look at Marijuana use. It's still illegal at the federal level but tons of people still use it.

And what about the over 300 million guns that have already been sold? Wouldn't the owners of those guns need to come forward to put their names and serial numbers on the registry? I doubt the drug dealers, terrorists, hate groups and gang bangers will be among those who own "legally registered" firearms.

Also, I'm not concerned that my "jollies" are in jeopardy. Guns aren't "jollies" to me. They are tools that, God forbid, I ever need to rely on to ensure the safety of myself or my family, will be available to me when I need them most.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

The point is that criminals will not register their guns. Do you really believe that a felon buying a Glock on the black market is going to run to the authorities, get fingerprinted, provide a photo ID and have them record the serial number of his illegal gun? Do you expect the system implemented by the government to not be a total clusterfuck?

Also, it's already illegal to provide firearms to criminals and it's already illegal for felons to own firearms. Maybe we suspend "unlawful search and seizure" rules for convicted felons. If they're found in possession of a firearm, they go back to prison.

And yes, asking why the government needs to know about my guns is a real question. I pose no threat to anyone. I've never even had a speeding or parking ticket. I secure my possessions responsibly and I know and respect the power of firearms. I'm getting a little tired of being treated like a criminal in waiting.

Licensing businesses, dogs and cars are entirely different things. These things are licensed for revenue purposes. For dogs, licenses help to know who's door to knock on if someone gets bitten. After the fact. The license doesn't prevent anything on its own. Responsible ownership, care and training are what prevent dog attacks.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that my views are "absolutely ridiculous". I respect that. However, I am entitled to my opinion that your views are misguided and naive.

We can still be friends though.

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Background checks and proficiency licensing are cool with me. Registration is a slippery slope and I don't think anything good could come of it.

Just my opinion.

Also, if we start licensing, there would be no reasonable opposition to a national Right to Carry bill. Right? If everyone has to pass a safety and proficiency test, only qualified and responsible people would have guns. There would be no reason to be fearful of those who carry concealed guns anywhere in the country.

We could do away with "Gun Free Zones" too.

That's where gunners jump the fence and leave the pasture. Slippery slope to what?? Shutting down the black market on guns? Nothing good can come from it? That's ludicrous.

I don't see how a national registration will have any positive effect on the black market. If anything, black market gun sales would skyrocket. Why does the government need to know if I own a gun. If I commit a crime with it, they'll know. I'll be arrested and tried in a court of law by a jury of my peers.

Registration will serve as a stepping stone to confiscation. Nothing more.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Who is going to make dozens of straw man purchases and send the guns on the iron pipeline knowing that those purchases will be registered and those guns will be tied to them?? Until we know who to hold accountable for providing weapons to criminals all other measures are a waste of time.
Why does the government need to know if you own a gun???? Is that a real question? The same reason they need to know you have a dog, car, a business, etc...because those things can pose a mortal danger to other citizens who have just as many rights as you.
I better unregister my car, they are going to confiscate it apparently.

The criminals don't need to register, the gun will be registered to whomever purchased it, and they can then be held accountable for the guns they have purchased. It is a deterrent, and it will work to reduce illegal sales if the criminal purchasers actually think there is a chance they will be caught.
Licensing and registration have the same purpose with cars and dogs as they should with guns, to deter through accountability and provide some measure of control.
Everybody is treated like a criminal in waiting, that's the price of a society of laws.
Gunners don't realize nobody who isn't gun-nutty (keep in mind, I own guns) cares about the "poor me" pitty parade that "hobbyists" try to throw about how their jollies are in jeopardy and they as unfairly maligned. It is a huge turn off for everyone but the most pro-gun people.

Yes, exactly. Are you suggesting that we eliminate those laws since they aren't 100% effective?? Of course not, that would be foolish, just like resisting gun laws because they aren't 100% effective is foolish.
I know about a dozen people that don't smoke marijuana because it's illegality is a deterrent, and just about everyone who is honest will tell you that the reason they don't drive buzzed is because it's illegality is a deterrent

No, I don't think we should eliminate those laws. I think they need to be in place so there is an established practice of how to deal with the people that break them. (Just like the already-established laws that deal with people who commit gun crimes deal with those individuals.) The idea that those laws serve as a deterrent is laughable, though.

I'm not resistent to any new gun laws, either. There are definitely things we could do to keep innocent people from being shot.

However, IMO, a national gun registry would likely make matters worse. It would cost a ton of money to implement, would only effect law-abiding citizens and it would do nothing to prevent crime.