CDZ Another attempt. What does registering guns for law abiding gun owners do to stop criminals

[2aguy]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[2aguy]

Here is another chance for those who support gun control to explain exactly what registering guns accomplishes.......

According to the Supreme Court Decision, Haynes v United States, actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns since it violates their Right against self incrimination...only law abiding people would have to register their guns...

So.....what is so magical about registering guns, except knowing who has them so they can later be confiscated?

As a lib/prog who believes in every law abiding citizen's right to own guns (pistols, rifles, semi-automatics) I like the idea of REGISTRATION accompanied by SAFETY TRAINING!...

kinda like when you got your license to drive a car....

I would even allow for non-military (citizens) to train with military/government experts on the care, use and handling of deadlier weapons. (tanks, for example).

But you couldn't own one.

Do you realize that under the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision criminals and felons do not have to register their illegal guns, and cannot be prosecuted for not registering those guns?

Also, could you explain what exactly registering guns is good for? Other than leading to confiscation once the democrats get the political power to impose confiscation?

And how do you pay for mandatory safety training? Any fee imposed on a Right makes that Right controlled by the government...and as ruled in Murdock v Pennsylvania, that is unConstitutional....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....
... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[DandyDonovan]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

 

[Wry Catcher]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

 

[DandyDonovan]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

So where do you stand on universal voter ID?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

So where do you stand on universal voter ID?

Absolutely, a proper ID needs to be defined by The Congress, and signed by the President. Since the Republican Party has not done so, it seems clear that the wedge issue of voter fraud is too important for them to have done so.

Also, a database in every state needs to be developed and accessible to each Polling Place Captain to prevent"double voting" (i.e. voting in person and by mail).

Live Scan Fingerprinting would be an excellent tool, but would likely scare too many people away. As a former member of the LE community I would like to see Live Scan used for voting, and for any use of a check or a credit card.

 

[DandyDonovan]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

So where do you stand on universal voter ID?

Absolutely, a proper ID needs to be defined by The Congress, and signed by the President. Since the Republican Party has not done so, it seems clear that the wedge issue of voter fraud is too important for them to do so.

Also, a database in every state needs to be developed and accessible to each Polling Place Captain to prevent"double voting" (i.e. voting in person and by mail).

Live Scan Fingerprinting would be an excellent tool, but would likely scare too many people away. As a former member of the LE community I would like to see Live Scan used for voting, and for any use of a check or a credit card.

You do realize that such a law has already been passed right? The Real ID Act, passed in freaking 2005 and yet we STILL have states that aren't complying.

I wonder why not

But anyway. I don't oppose gun registration. I don't even oppose a national database, because even though there obviously are quite a few nuts out there who would love to confiscate guns, that's not going to happen in this country.

What I DO oppose though is idiots insisting that people pay thousands of dollars a year in some instances to have a right, especially when those same people are screaming about voter ID causing people to not be able to vote because of the cost of the ID.

And yes, there is NO doubt that in cities like New York yes there are morons there who would attempt to confiscate guns, and those people control the government and thus the police. If we had mandatory gun registration would you support sending in the military to put an end to any confiscation attempts by local government?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

So where do you stand on universal voter ID?

Absolutely, a proper ID needs to be defined by The Congress, and signed by the President. Since the Republican Party has not done so, it seems clear that the wedge issue of voter fraud is too important for them to do so.

Also, a database in every state needs to be developed and accessible to each Polling Place Captain to prevent"double voting" (i.e. voting in person and by mail).

Live Scan Fingerprinting would be an excellent tool, but would likely scare too many people away. As a former member of the LE community I would like to see Live Scan used for voting, and for any use of a check or a credit card.

You do realize that such a law has already been passed right? The Real ID Act, passed in freaking 2005 and yet we STILL have states that aren't complying.

I wonder why not

But anyway. I don't oppose gun registration. I don't even oppose a national database, because even though there obviously are quite a few nuts out there who would love to confiscate guns, that's not going to happen in this country.

What I DO oppose though is idiots insisting that people pay thousands of dollars a year in some instances to have a right, especially when those same people are screaming about voter ID causing people to not be able to vote because of the cost of the ID.

And yes, there is NO doubt that in cities like New York yes there are morons there who would attempt to confiscate guns, and those people control the government and thus the police. If we had mandatory gun registration would you support sending in the military to put an end to any confiscation attempts by local government?

The conspiracy theory that the government will take away all guns from the civilian population has no feet, it is a wet dream and a BIG LIE oft repeated.

I believed each state ought to have the ability to decide to or not require those who wish to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun to licensed; one issued by the State for life, with the ability of the State Courts to suspend or revoke said license with due process.

That the licensed gun owner will register all firearms in their possession, and to sell, give or loan any firearm they own only to another licensed person, and the sale or giving to said licensed person be done after getting notification from the state authority to complete the transfer.

 

[Oddball]

The conspiracy theory that the government will take away all guns from the civilian population has no feet, it is a wet dream and a BIG LIE oft repeated.

I believed each state ought to have the ability to decide to or not require those who wish to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun to licensed; one issued by the State for life, with the ability of the State Courts to suspend or revoke said license with due process.

That the licensed gun owner will register all firearms in their possession, and to sell, give or loan any firearm they own only to another licensed person, and the sale or giving to said licensed person be done after getting notification from the state authority to complete the transfer.

Speaking BIG LIES being oft repeated, let's give a listen to some legislators who were unaware that there was a hot mic nearby....

 

[2aguy]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

Wrong, it does no such thing, and we know this from the Canadian attempt to register 15 million long guns. You can already determine if someone can or can't possess a gun by simply running their name through the police system when the police interact with them on a routine basis....if they have a gun on them, and their name pops up as a criminal, they can already be arrested. We don't need to register legal guns to do this.

Also, the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v United States states that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, and can't be prosecuted for not registering their guns....since that would violate their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

You don't know what you are talking about...

 

[Wry Catcher]

The conspiracy theory that the government will take away all guns from the civilian population has no feet, it is a wet dream and a BIG LIE oft repeated.

I believed each state ought to have the ability to decide to or not require those who wish to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun to licensed; one issued by the State for life, with the ability of the State Courts to suspend or revoke said license with due process.

That the licensed gun owner will register all firearms in their possession, and to sell, give or loan any firearm they own only to another licensed person, and the sale or giving to said licensed person be done after getting notification from the state authority to complete the transfer.

Speaking BIG LIES being oft repeated, let's give a listen to some legislators who were unaware that there was a hot mic nearby....

Hey odd dude, you've never answered my question, why do you post? It seems you have nothing of substance to offer, and do so to get some attention. That's pity and sad.

 

[2aguy]

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

So where do you stand on universal voter ID?

Absolutely, a proper ID needs to be defined by The Congress, and signed by the President. Since the Republican Party has not done so, it seems clear that the wedge issue of voter fraud is too important for them to do so.

Also, a database in every state needs to be developed and accessible to each Polling Place Captain to prevent"double voting" (i.e. voting in person and by mail).

Live Scan Fingerprinting would be an excellent tool, but would likely scare too many people away. As a former member of the LE community I would like to see Live Scan used for voting, and for any use of a check or a credit card.

You do realize that such a law has already been passed right? The Real ID Act, passed in freaking 2005 and yet we STILL have states that aren't complying.

I wonder why not

But anyway. I don't oppose gun registration. I don't even oppose a national database, because even though there obviously are quite a few nuts out there who would love to confiscate guns, that's not going to happen in this country.

What I DO oppose though is idiots insisting that people pay thousands of dollars a year in some instances to have a right, especially when those same people are screaming about voter ID causing people to not be able to vote because of the cost of the ID.

And yes, there is NO doubt that in cities like New York yes there are morons there who would attempt to confiscate guns, and those people control the government and thus the police. If we had mandatory gun registration would you support sending in the military to put an end to any confiscation attempts by local government?

The conspiracy theory that the government will take away all guns from the civilian population has no feet, it is a wet dream and a BIG LIE oft repeated.

I believed each state ought to have the ability to decide to or not require those who wish to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun to licensed; one issued by the State for life, with the ability of the State Courts to suspend or revoke said license with due process.

That the licensed gun owner will register all firearms in their possession, and to sell, give or loan any firearm they own only to another licensed person, and the sale or giving to said licensed person be done after getting notification from the state authority to complete the transfer.

They are already doing this one gun at a time, currently using magazine bullet limits to achieve gun bans without having to pass laws against actual guns.

Owning a gun is a Right......you don't get permission from the government, you don't pay a tax, you don't pass a test to exercise a Right...no matter how many times you guys try to do it, wether for voting or gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

You are wrong...Canada already learned that gun registration is a joke.....and they just tried to register 15 million guns, not 600 million...

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

-------


Ten Myths Of The Long Gun Registry | Canadian Shooting Sports Association


Myth #4: Police investigations are aided by the registry.

Doubtful. Information contained in the registry is incomplete and unreliable. Due to the inaccuracy of the information, it cannot be used as evidence in court and the government has yet to prove that it has been a contributing factor in any investigation. Another factor is the dismal compliance rate (estimated at only 50%) for licensing and registration which further renders the registry useless. Some senior police officers have stated as such: “The law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered ... the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” Former Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino, January 2003.


https://www.quora.com/In-countries-...olved-at-least-in-part-by-use-of-the-registry



Tracking physical objects that are easily transferred with a database is non-trivial problem. Guns that are stolen, loaned, or lost disappear from the registry. The data is has to be manually entered and input mistakes will both leak guns and generate false positive results.

Registries don’t solve straw-purchases. If someone goes through all of the steps to register a gun and simply gives it to a criminal that gun becomes unregistered. Assuming the gun is ever recovered you could theoretically try and prosecute the person who transferred the gun to the criminal, but you aren’t solving the crime you were trying to. Remember that people will prostitute themselves or even their children for drugs, so how much deterrence is there in a maybe-get-a-few-years for straw purchasing?

Registries are expensive. Canada’s registry was pitched as costing the taxpayer $2 million and the rest of the costs were to be payed for with registration fees. It was subject to massive cost overruns that were not being met by registrations fees. When the program was audited in 2002 the program was expected to cost over $1 billion and that the fee revenue was only expected to be $140 million.

No gun recovered. If no gun was recovered at the scene of the crime then your registry isn’t even theoretically helping, let alone providing a practical tool. You need a world where criminals meticulously register their guns and leave them at the crime scene for a registry to start to become useful.

Say I have a registered gun, and a known associate of mine was shot and killed. Ballistics is able to determine that my known associate was killed with the same make and model as the gun I registered. A registry doesn’t prove that my gun was used, or that I was the one doing the shooting. I was a suspect as soon as we said “known associate” and the police will then being looking for motive and checking for my alibi.

 

[Pilot1]

All the activities that criminals do are ALREADY ILLEGAL with or without a gun. Make actions illegal as they ALREADY ARE, not objects. You can't make something MORE ILLEGAL!!!

 

[Oddball]

Hey odd dude, you've never answered my question, why do you post? It seems you have nothing of substance to offer, and do so to get some attention. That's pity and sad.

I debunked your nonsense about the big lie perpetrated by the gun grabbers....People in power ARE trying find ways to confiscate guns.

If you don't think that's substantive, go ahead and report the post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

Wrong, it does no such thing, and we know this from the Canadian attempt to register 15 million long guns. You can already determine if someone can or can't possess a gun by simply running their name through the police system when the police interact with them on a routine basis....if they have a gun on them, and their name pops up as a criminal, they can already be arrested. We don't need to register legal guns to do this.

Also, the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v United States states that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, and can't be prosecuted for not registering their guns....since that would violate their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

You don't know what you are talking about...

Haynes is a specific case which has nothing to do with registration of legal guns being subject to taxation or not. Criminals will not register their guns, law abiding citizens will. There will be no violation for the possession of legal guns, and each state will decide the legality of any hand or long gun, alone with the size of the magazine & if any tax is applied to a gun or guns.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Go away.

 

[DandyDonovan]

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

So where do you stand on universal voter ID?

Absolutely, a proper ID needs to be defined by The Congress, and signed by the President. Since the Republican Party has not done so, it seems clear that the wedge issue of voter fraud is too important for them to do so.

Also, a database in every state needs to be developed and accessible to each Polling Place Captain to prevent"double voting" (i.e. voting in person and by mail).

Live Scan Fingerprinting would be an excellent tool, but would likely scare too many people away. As a former member of the LE community I would like to see Live Scan used for voting, and for any use of a check or a credit card.

You do realize that such a law has already been passed right? The Real ID Act, passed in freaking 2005 and yet we STILL have states that aren't complying.

I wonder why not

But anyway. I don't oppose gun registration. I don't even oppose a national database, because even though there obviously are quite a few nuts out there who would love to confiscate guns, that's not going to happen in this country.

What I DO oppose though is idiots insisting that people pay thousands of dollars a year in some instances to have a right, especially when those same people are screaming about voter ID causing people to not be able to vote because of the cost of the ID.

And yes, there is NO doubt that in cities like New York yes there are morons there who would attempt to confiscate guns, and those people control the government and thus the police. If we had mandatory gun registration would you support sending in the military to put an end to any confiscation attempts by local government?

The conspiracy theory that the government will take away all guns from the civilian population has no feet, it is a wet dream and a BIG LIE oft repeated.

I believed each state ought to have the ability to decide to or not require those who wish to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun to licensed; one issued by the State for life, with the ability of the State Courts to suspend or revoke said license with due process.

That the licensed gun owner will register all firearms in their possession, and to sell, give or loan any firearm they own only to another licensed person, and the sale or giving to said licensed person be done after getting notification from the state authority to complete the transfer.

Your antiquated ideas were done away with the 1920s when SCOTUS incorporated the COTUS to include states.

Otherwise, states would have been able to , for example, outlaw gay marriage.

I'm not saying I'm disagreeing with you. I'm saying originally the founding fathers did not mean for the COTUS to limit state government authority, only federal. But that has changed.

 

[DandyDonovan]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

Wrong, it does no such thing, and we know this from the Canadian attempt to register 15 million long guns. You can already determine if someone can or can't possess a gun by simply running their name through the police system when the police interact with them on a routine basis....if they have a gun on them, and their name pops up as a criminal, they can already be arrested. We don't need to register legal guns to do this.

Also, the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v United States states that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, and can't be prosecuted for not registering their guns....since that would violate their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

You don't know what you are talking about...

Haynes is a specific case which has nothing to do with registration of legal guns being subject to taxation or not. Criminals will not register their guns, law abiding citizens will. There will be no violation for the possession of legal guns, and each state will decide the legality of any hand or long gun, alone with the size of the magazine & if any tax is applied to a gun or guns.

Be reasonable. There is exactly no difference between requiring someone to buy an ID to vote (which most liberals oppose btw, you're unusual in that regard) and requiring someone to have an ID so they can pass a background check to buy a gun.

And there is no difference between a poll tax and a tax to own a gun.

 

[2aguy]

What's more important to me is the fundamental fact of the matter.

Propose ANY legislation , for example, to ensure that only US citizens are voting IE voter id and what do Democrats scream "You're disenfranchising poor people who can't afford to pay $5 every 4 years for an ID" or whatever. But those same damn Democrats will then go out and vote for a law that imposes fees of hundreds or even thousands of dollars on top of having to have that same ID to buy a gun from a gun store anyway. Meaning, of course, by their own logic they are preventing poor people from being able to legally own a gun.

That's right folks, by their own logic Democrats are taking a right away from poor people.

Any fee on the Right to bear arms is unConstitutional under the Murdock v Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.......

All of these fees and taxes need to be challenged up to the Supreme Court once Ruth buzzy is replaced....

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:
...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...
... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

See though , this is where Democrats are smart. They try to make the conversation about anything other than " I have a right to own a gun" they will bring up deaths, as if 10M dead Americans a year even would change the fact that I have a right to own my guns. They will bring up ANYTHING to avoid the central issue, and often times gun rights activists let them, veering into the void with them.

I don't get it, there needs be no further discussion than "I have a right and you can't infringe on it, why I need or want guns isn't the topic, and what other people do with THEIR guns isn't the topic. The topic is MY right"

Registration of guns allows LE to track firearms, and to determine if a shadow purchase occurred as well as a sale to someone who would not have passed a background check.

Your right comes with responsibilities!

Wrong, it does no such thing, and we know this from the Canadian attempt to register 15 million long guns. You can already determine if someone can or can't possess a gun by simply running their name through the police system when the police interact with them on a routine basis....if they have a gun on them, and their name pops up as a criminal, they can already be arrested. We don't need to register legal guns to do this.

Also, the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v United States states that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, and can't be prosecuted for not registering their guns....since that would violate their 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination....

You don't know what you are talking about...

Haynes is a specific case which has nothing to do with registration of legal guns being subject to taxation or not. Criminals will not register their guns, law abiding citizens will. There will be no violation for the possession of legal guns, and each state will decide the legality of any hand or long gun, alone with the size of the magazine & if any tax is applied to a gun or guns.

Yeah...you missed the point........criminals who have illegal guns will walk on charges that they didn't register their illegal guns.....while law abiding gun owners will become felons if they don't register their legal guns.... that you don't see the incredible insanity of that, shows you are not serious.