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)

Go away.

Yes.... I show you an actual Supreme Court ruling that wrecks your entire argument, every scheme you have to use taxes and fees to attack this Right, and you have that response...... your surrender is noted...

 

[Wry Catcher]

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!!!

You need to read Penal Codes. Use a gun, go to prison. No probation, even if there was no use of the firearm; simple possession of a gun, when a crime occurs, even when not discharged or even shown to the victim, is alleged in the complaint or indictment and adds time, known as an enhancement.

 

[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.

Yes.... I show you an actual Supreme Court ruling that wrecks your entire argument, every scheme you have to use taxes and fees to attack this Right, and you have that response...... your surrender is noted...

Go away. Don't you have gun to play with?

 

[2aguy]

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!!!

You need to read Penal Codes. Use a gun, go to prison. No probation, even if there was no use of the firearm; simple possession of a gun, when a crime occurs, even when not discharged or even shown to the victim, is alleged in the complaint or indictment and adds time, known as an enhancement.

Which the democrat prosecutor bargains away to get the conviction...which is why the criminals who end up killing people with guns have long records of felony gun crimes that were bargained away......... we don't have a gun problem, we have a criminal control problem, created by the policies of democrat politicians, judges and prosecutors...

 

[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)

Go away.

Yes.... I show you an actual Supreme Court ruling that wrecks your entire argument, every scheme you have to use taxes and fees to attack this Right, and you have that response...... your surrender is noted...

Go away. Don't you have gun to play with?

Again, the truth, the facts and reality show you are wrong....and you respond with that .....

 

[DandyDonovan]

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!!!

You need to read Penal Codes. Use a gun, go to prison. No probation, even if there was no use of the firearm; simple possession of a gun, when a crime occurs, even when not discharged or even shown to the victim, is alleged in the complaint or indictment and adds time, known as an enhancement.

Too bad that is rarely applied. Especially in cities ran by Democrats. Isn't that strange Wry? Democrats scream about gun control , as Democrats around the country are lenient on criminals who use guns. Even Obama , how many criminals that used guns in their crimes did he grant clemency to?

For the most part, it's same damn people comitting gun crimes over and over and over, because they know the penalties aren't that harsh.

How about this, possession of a gun while committing a crime gets you 50 years in prison, mandatory, no parole, no commutations, nothing. After 2 years or so THAT would drastically reduce gun crime in this country.

 

[2aguy]

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!!!

You need to read Penal Codes. Use a gun, go to prison. No probation, even if there was no use of the firearm; simple possession of a gun, when a crime occurs, even when not discharged or even shown to the victim, is alleged in the complaint or indictment and adds time, known as an enhancement.

Too bad that is rarely applied. Especially in cities ran by Democrats. Isn't that strange Wry? Democrats scream about gun control , as Democrats around the country are lenient on criminals who use guns. Even Obama , how many criminals that used guns in their crimes did he grant clemency to?

For the most part, it's same damn people comitting gun crimes over and over and over, because they know the penalties aren't that harsh.

How about this, possession of a gun while committing a crime gets you 50 years in prison, mandatory, no parole, no commutations, nothing. After 2 years or so THAT would drastically reduce gun crime in this country.

Yes....actually focusing on people using guns to commit crimes would actually lower the gun crime rate. That isn't what wry and the other anti gunners want. They want to take guns away from law abiding gun owners, the ones who don't use guns for crimes. Their problem? Since law abiding gun owners don't use their guns for crimes, they are hard to get at....so in order to turn them into criminals, so they can lose their gun Rights.....wry and the other anti gunners create red tape and legal restrictions which create more opportunities to make law abiding gun owners into violators of the new gun laws...fail to register a gun...you are now a felon where before you weren't. Get caught with one more bullet in your magazine than the 5 allowed....you are now a felon, where before you weren't. Forget to renew your gun license....now you are a felon, where before you were not....... They can't get the guns of law abiding citizens, and that fact drives them nuts......so they need to keep making more laws to create a bigger net to catch up normal people....

 

[oldsoul]

This whole "gun control" debate is just silly, IMHO. I mean seriously read the 2nd, and tell me where is allows the government to do ANYTHING on the topic.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Emphasis added.

Infringed:
1)actively break the terms of
2)act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

 

[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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

 

[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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

I would agree that most would be okay with a one time fee and registration IF more liberals like you stood up and told Democrats "enough, gun ownership is a right" when the conversation started, but too damn many Democrats are either complicint or complacent when it comes to the rights of gun owners, and I'm sorry but liberals have a shown over and over again that the slippery slope is real. Give them an inch and then they'll take a mile.

 

[2aguy]

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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

I would agree that most would be okay with a one time fee and registration IF more liberals like you stood up and told Democrats "enough, gun ownership is a right" when the conversation started, but too damn many Democrats are either complicint or complacent when it comes to the rights of gun owners, and I'm sorry but liberals have a shown over and over again that the slippery slope is real. Give them an inch and then they'll take a mile.

Wry is a gun grabber..... he just hides it better on occasion than other gun grabbers.

 

[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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

Please explain why you want licensing and registration. Included in the explanation please explain what you want to achieve and how licensing law abiding citizens and registration of guns would work towards those ends.

Then, explain why we shouldn't require a fee to pay for a license to vote, or to write a book or a newspaper column....

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

Please explain why you want licensing and registration. Included in the explanation please explain what you want to achieve and how licensing law abiding citizens and registration of guns would work towards those ends.

Then, explain why we shouldn't require a fee to pay for a license to vote, or to write a book or a newspaper column....

I would gladly trade requiring testing and licensing to own a gun for testing and licensing to be able to vote.

GLADLY

And yes 2A there are lots of people in our country who don't deserve either right.

 

[2aguy]

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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

Please explain why you want licensing and registration. Included in the explanation please explain what you want to achieve and how licensing law abiding citizens and registration of guns would work towards those ends.

Then, explain why we shouldn't require a fee to pay for a license to vote, or to write a book or a newspaper column....

I would gladly trade requiring testing and licensing to own a gun for testing and licensing to be able to vote.

GLADLY

And yes 2A there are lots of people in our country who don't deserve either right.

Sorry, licensing does nothing...and is unConstitutional. Testing is also unConstitutional....as the democrats found out when they used Literacy tests to keep Blacks and poor Whites from voting.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

I agree with all of you post except the last sentence. We do not need the military to engage local law enforcement even if such an agency sought to confiscate weapons without due process or within the provision of the 4th Amendment.

In such a case the State governor would or should use the national guard. If not, then the President of the United States can nationalize the guard to intervene.

I've said over and over that I support the legal ownership of sober, sane and law abiding citizens. I also believe law abiding citizens would mostly support licensing - a one time fee - and registration.

Please explain why you want licensing and registration. Included in the explanation please explain what you want to achieve and how licensing law abiding citizens and registration of guns would work towards those ends.

Then, explain why we shouldn't require a fee to pay for a license to vote, or to write a book or a newspaper column....

I would gladly trade requiring testing and licensing to own a gun for testing and licensing to be able to vote.

GLADLY

And yes 2A there are lots of people in our country who don't deserve either right.

Sorry, licensing does nothing...and is unConstitutional. Testing is also unConstitutional....as the democrats found out when they used Literacy tests to keep Blacks and poor Whites from voting.

I said I would trade . I mentioned nothing of whether that is legal or not.

 

[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...

Do you not understand R v. W can be repealed with one vote on the Supreme Court? So can any and all of the gun decisions you post.

Do you not understand the Supreme Court overruled "Separate but Equal" (Plessy) in Brown v. BOE?

Times change, and the number of mass murders of kids in school has changed the discussion, and created a new generation of voters whose voice has been and will be heard in our communities and in the halls of Congress.

It's people like you who put gun ownership in America in jeopardy. You're not smart enough and too obsessed with your guns to understand.

Schools are safer today than they were in the 90s...... and the number of shootings in schools have not increased......emotional, hyper active reporting has increased, but not school shootings.

 

[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...

Do you not understand R v. W can be repealed with one vote on the Supreme Court? So can any and all of the gun decisions you post.

Do you not understand the Supreme Court overruled "Separate but Equal" (Plessy) in Brown v. BOE?

Times change, and the number of mass murders of kids in school has changed the discussion, and created a new generation of voters whose voice has been and will be heard in our communities and in the halls of Congress.

It's people like you who put gun ownership in America in jeopardy. You're not smart enough and too obsessed with your guns to understand.

You are wrong...again...

So...according to the actual facts, you are wrong...what next? And keep in mind, schools are safer as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years...what else you got?

Despite Heightened Fear Of School Shootings, It's Not A Growing Epidemic

"Schools are safer today than they had been in previous decades," says James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University who has studied the phenomenon of mass murder since the 1980s.

Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel crunched the numbers, and the results should come as a relief to parents.

First, while multiple-victim shootings in general are on the rise, that's not the case in schools. There's an average of about one a year — in a country with more than 100,000 schools.

"There were more back in the '90s than in recent years," says Fox. "For example, in one school year — 1997-98 — there were four multiple-victim shootings in schools."

Second, the overall number of gunshot victims at schools is also down. According to Fox's numbers, back in the 1992-93 school year, about 0.55 students per million were shot and killed; in 2014-15, that rate was closer to 0.15 per million.

------

Other experts agree. Garen Wintemute is an emergency room physician who leads a prominent gun violence research program at the University of California, Davis. He says school shootings, specifically, are not epidemic.

"Schools are just about the safest place in the world for kids to be," Wintemute says. "Although each one of them is horrific and rivets the entire nation for a period of time, mass shootings at schools are really very uncommon, and they are not increasing in frequency. What's changed is how aware we are of them."

 

[boedicca]

Forcing law-abiding citizens to register their guns is part of the same agenda which wants to force us to get rid of fossil fuels (because Global Warming). The real objective of both is for a small group of "elites" to control the rest of us. It's the Neo-Feudalism agenda currently marketed as Socialism.

 

[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!

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...

Do you not understand R v. W can be repealed with one vote on the Supreme Court? So can any and all of the gun decisions you post.

Do you not understand the Supreme Court overruled "Separate but Equal" (Plessy) in Brown v. BOE?

Times change, and the number of mass murders of kids in school has changed the discussion, and created a new generation of voters whose voice has been and will be heard in our communities and in the halls of Congress.

It's people like you who put gun ownership in America in jeopardy. You're not smart enough and too obsessed with your guns to understand.

Schools are safer today than they were in the 90s...... and the number of shootings in schools have not increased......emotional, hyper active reporting has increased, but not school shootings.

GO AWAY. Keep you obsession to yourself, for you endanger the rights of sane, sober and lawful gun owners. As I said, you and others like you, are not smart enough to understand you will effect gun control laws well into the future.

Have you forgotten Las Vegas, Orlando, Aurora, San Francisco @UPS, or in places of worship.*

*A short history of mass shootings at houses of worship

Maybe you've convinced yourself all of these are fake news and never really occurred.

Sir, registration would have done NOTHING to prevent any of the shootings you just cited.

You acknowledge this, don't you?

 

[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!

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...

Do you not understand R v. W can be repealed with one vote on the Supreme Court? So can any and all of the gun decisions you post.

Do you not understand the Supreme Court overruled "Separate but Equal" (Plessy) in Brown v. BOE?

Times change, and the number of mass murders of kids in school has changed the discussion, and created a new generation of voters whose voice has been and will be heard in our communities and in the halls of Congress.

It's people like you who put gun ownership in America in jeopardy. You're not smart enough and too obsessed with your guns to understand.

Schools are safer today than they were in the 90s...... and the number of shootings in schools have not increased......emotional, hyper active reporting has increased, but not school shootings.

GO AWAY. Keep you obsession to yourself, for you endanger the rights of sane, sober and lawful gun owners. As I said, you and others like you, are not smart enough to understand you will effect gun control laws well into the future.

Have you forgotten Las Vegas, Orlando, Aurora, San Francisco @UPS, or in places of worship.*

*A short history of mass shootings at houses of worship

Maybe you've convinced yourself all of these are fake news and never really occurred.

Have you forgotten Las Vegas, Orlando, Aurora, San Francisco @UPS, or in places of worship.*

I haven't forgotten that all of those places were gun free zones......I also haven't forgotten the fact that armed citizens in mass public shootings, have a 94% effective rate at stopping the attacker and/or reducing the deaths and injuries......and that according to the Centers for Disease Control, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to protect themselves from criminals....