CDZ Are You For a National Registry of Gun Owners?

[2aguy]

I have 0 problem with registering a gun , or having a back round check for that matter

Do you even understand either issue?

 

[2aguy]

The second amendment says nothing about maintaining a militia only that a militia is necessary

It's up to the people to form and maintain a militia if the need arises not the government

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

How do we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what guns they have?
Do you have a problem with us having a free state?

To have a well regulated militia we need to register all our guns, license the owners to make sure they are properly trained and equipped...if we are invaded, we would have to call them up to protect us

You tell me what you think well regulated means.

And when you say "we" would call them up just who do you mean

We the People....same ones who wrote the Constitution in the first place

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Training and registration have always been used to restrict the right to guns……..always. Cars are not guns….they are not protected...

 

[2aguy]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California…they just want to know who has what guns…until they get the power to ban the guns they want banned….then they send out letters telling the owners they have a certain period of time to get rid of their legal, constitutionally protected property….

Speculation fallacy. Again. Which is already the basis of the OP anyway.

Cars have been registered for over a century, and y'all just looooooooove to compare them to firearms.

Clearly they're going to ban cars any day now.

Guns are not cars….guns keep the powerful in check. That is why dictators never allow their people to have guns.

That's funny, since in about 4300 other threads car fatalities are constantly coming up as a false comparison.

Now suddenly --- not so convenient.

The anti gun extremists started comparing guns to cars with that stupid meme about gun deaths and car deaths….you guys started it and now are complaining when it is used to show how dumb your ideas are.

Ummmmm no Sparky that was you comic book dwellers. Want me to quote some posts?

Wrong….we got it when it started to appear in left wing anti gun stories in the media who believed they had a new way to demonize guns….

How gun deaths became as common as traffic deaths

The trend was driven largely by the sharp drop in the rate of traffic fatalities, a result of a series of laws and safety measures aimed at making driving safer. Gun homicide rates also have fallen in recent years, but have been offset by the rising prevalence of suicides. Today, suicides account for roughly two out of every three gun deaths.
----------
Those divergent trends reflect two different pictures of gun violence in the U.S. Black Americans are significantly more likely to be victims of homicide, but just one in five black households have guns. White Americans are more than twice as likely to have guns in their homes and they experience gun violence largely through suicides.


then we showed you how guns..which you say are only made to kill….kill fewer people intentionally….8,124 people….while cars accidentally kill over 35,000 people a year….and deflated your whole argument….

And with over 357 million guns in private hands…there were only 505 accidental gun deaths in 2013………..with over 13 million people carrying guns for self defense…again, making your whole point stupid….

 

[320 Years of History]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

No, it isn't. It's about collecting information so that one can use that information to subsequently take action against people who betray the trust placed in them when they chose to exercise their right to own a firearm.

And no, owners of black market guns are not going to register their guns. But by having stricter rules that allow for the easy tracking and verifying the flow of any given gun from lawful seller/owner to lawful owner/sell to, eventually, an unlawful owner tells us who is responsible for failing to exercise adequate control over their weapon.

The problem is not that lawful users obtain guns; it's that unlawful users do. The only way to find out what ostensibly lawful consumers are/have lapsed in their duty to make sure nobody "untoward" gets hold of their gun, is to require folks to document/attest to how and when they came by their gun and how and when they yielded/lost possession of it.

For example, if you buy a couple guns and register both of them, great. Enjoy your weapons. If one of them gets stolen and you don't report the theft, there comes about the first "building block" in a plausible argument that you (1) were negligent in exercising due care over securing your weapon, (2) conspired to allow your gun to be stolen. Now one theft is not really indicative of either, so the presumption of innocence still accrues to you. In time, you replace you stolen weapon and buy several others and register them. If they don't keep getting stolen, there's little cause to think you are routinely negligent or willfully part of a supply chain for getting legal guns into the hands of illegal users.

You are a silly person......registration is not needed to do anything you just suggested and in fact is not being used to stop criminals now........the gun traffickers that have been captured, that I have posted about....have all been captured by police using snitches and undercover buys..........not one was done by following a registered gun.

and losing a gun or having a gun stolen does not make you a criminal.....And if they catch multiple criminals who all say yeah...that guy gave me the gun....there was no need to register guns to find that out...is there.....and that is how all other crimes are solved...actual police work.....


the absolute only reason to register guns is to eventually ban them....as happened in Britain, Germany, Australia, California, New York......

.there is a history that shows what registration allows......and it always ends in confiscation.......

I'm not silly at all. A registry isn't ever going to stop criminals. All it's going to go is give law enforcement a place to look to identify where the process of maintaining security over one's firearm ownership/possession breaks down.

Pink:
Maybe that's because there's no efficient and effective way to "mine" the data about gun ownership to determine whether/if there are any patterns associated with one or a group of "somehow related" individuals' losing possession of guns they lawfully obtained.

Red:
Yes, that's true if one is limited to taking a reactive approach to identifying the nature of an illegal weapons trade supply chain. If one wants to take a proactive approach to finding out where to look before once legal weapons make their way to illegal users and then get used to commit a crime or kill another person, one must have a means for identifying logical places to look. A registry provides a useful tool for enabling a proactive approach to the problem.

Blue:
Slippery Slope.

What has happened in other places is no indication of what will happen in the U.S. Moreover, those places don't have our 2nd Amendment so it is no surprise that the outcome you identified was a possible outcome in those place.

Nobody wants to take away one's guns. Officials and everyone else has a vested interest in making sure where they are, in whose possession they are.

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The second amendment says nothing about maintaining a militia only that a militia is necessary

It's up to the people to form and maintain a militia if the need arises not the government

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

How do we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what guns they have?
Do you have a problem with us having a free state?

To have a well regulated militia we need to register all our guns, license the owners to make sure they are properly trained and equipped...if we are invaded, we would have to call them up to protect us

You tell me what you think well regulated means.

And when you say "we" would call them up just who do you mean

We the People....same ones who wrote the Constitution in the first place

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

 

[rightwinger]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

How do we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what guns they have?
Do you have a problem with us having a free state?

To have a well regulated militia we need to register all our guns, license the owners to make sure they are properly trained and equipped...if we are invaded, we would have to call them up to protect us

You tell me what you think well regulated means.

And when you say "we" would call them up just who do you mean

We the People....same ones who wrote the Constitution in the first place

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

 

[Skull Pilot]

You tell me what you think well regulated means.

And when you say "we" would call them up just who do you mean

We the People....same ones who wrote the Constitution in the first place

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

 

[strollingbones]

no

 

[rightwinger]

We the People....same ones who wrote the Constitution in the first place

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

It doesn't specify a standing Army or an Air Force either

However, the militias of the day were controlled by the Government. If they objected to Government control of militias, they would have said so

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

It doesn't specify a standing Army or an Air Force either

However, the militias of the day were controlled by the Government. If they objected to Government control of militias, they would have said so

That's not how it works

The Constitution explicitly enumerates the rights of the federal government. If it doesn't say regulated by the government then it is not meant to be regulated by the government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry but people in CA cannot "call up" a militia from CT therefore they have no reason to know who in CT has guns

Militias were always regarded as local entities not country wide entities

Furthermore membership in a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

It doesn't specify a standing Army or an Air Force either

However, the militias of the day were controlled by the Government. If they objected to Government control of militias, they would have said so

It does say army and navy

 

[2aguy]

Because it is the first step needed to ban guns….we have seen this in Britain and Australia, and in various states like New York and California

So guns have been banned in New York and California, have they?

Try to buy an AR-15 in New York….or in California…..or a gun with a 15 round magazine…….one pistol I have……can't be sold in California……..

And those are all the guns in existence, are they? I never knew it was so simple.

Try to buy one in New York…they can exist, but if you can't buy one they are banned….

 

[2aguy]

The second amendment supports a gun registry to maintain a "Well regulated militia"

Nope……doesn't say that anywhere…..

 

[2aguy]

The second amendment supports a gun registry to maintain a "Well regulated militia"

The second amendment says nothing about maintaining a militia only that a militia is necessary

It's up to the people to form and maintain a militia if the need arises not the government

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

How do we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what guns they have?
Do you have a problem with us having a free state?

To have a well regulated militia we need to register all our guns, license the owners to make sure they are properly trained and equipped...if we are invaded, we would have to call them up to protect us

You know what……..what we need is the government to provide guns for every home……..those guns can be registered all day long……but privately held guns…no reason to register them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The second amendment supports a gun registry to maintain a "Well regulated militia"

The second amendment says nothing about maintaining a militia only that a militia is necessary

It's up to the people to form and maintain a militia if the need arises not the government

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

How do we regulate our militias without knowing who has guns and what guns they have?
Do you have a problem with us having a free state?

To have a well regulated militia we need to register all our guns, license the owners to make sure they are properly trained and equipped...if we are invaded, we would have to call them up to protect us

You know what……..what we need is the government to provide guns for every home……..those guns can be registered all day long……but privately held guns…no reason to register them.

I can see it now Obama-gats

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

It doesn't specify a standing Army or an Air Force either

However, the militias of the day were controlled by the Government. If they objected to Government control of militias, they would have said so

That's not how it works

The Constitution explicitly enumerates the rights of the federal government. If it doesn't say regulated by the government then it is not meant to be regulated by the government.

OK...lets go there

Well regulated by whom?

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem with gun registration and the training and registration of gun owners being done at the state level. Probably easier that way...just like we do with cars

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

It doesn't specify a standing Army or an Air Force either

However, the militias of the day were controlled by the Government. If they objected to Government control of militias, they would have said so

It does say army and navy

It only provides for a full time Navy

 

[2aguy]

Registering guns is just so you can later ban them when you get the political will...

No, it isn't. It's about collecting information so that one can use that information to subsequently take action against people who betray the trust placed in them when they chose to exercise their right to own a firearm.

And no, owners of black market guns are not going to register their guns. But by having stricter rules that allow for the easy tracking and verifying the flow of any given gun from lawful seller/owner to lawful owner/sell to, eventually, an unlawful owner tells us who is responsible for failing to exercise adequate control over their weapon.

The problem is not that lawful users obtain guns; it's that unlawful users do. The only way to find out what ostensibly lawful consumers are/have lapsed in their duty to make sure nobody "untoward" gets hold of their gun, is to require folks to document/attest to how and when they came by their gun and how and when they yielded/lost possession of it.

For example, if you buy a couple guns and register both of them, great. Enjoy your weapons. If one of them gets stolen and you don't report the theft, there comes about the first "building block" in a plausible argument that you (1) were negligent in exercising due care over securing your weapon, (2) conspired to allow your gun to be stolen. Now one theft is not really indicative of either, so the presumption of innocence still accrues to you. In time, you replace you stolen weapon and buy several others and register them. If they don't keep getting stolen, there's little cause to think you are routinely negligent or willfully part of a supply chain for getting legal guns into the hands of illegal users.

You are a silly person......registration is not needed to do anything you just suggested and in fact is not being used to stop criminals now........the gun traffickers that have been captured, that I have posted about....have all been captured by police using snitches and undercover buys..........not one was done by following a registered gun.

and losing a gun or having a gun stolen does not make you a criminal.....And if they catch multiple criminals who all say yeah...that guy gave me the gun....there was no need to register guns to find that out...is there.....and that is how all other crimes are solved...actual police work.....


the absolute only reason to register guns is to eventually ban them....as happened in Britain, Germany, Australia, California, New York......

.there is a history that shows what registration allows......and it always ends in confiscation.......

I'm not silly at all. A registry isn't ever going to stop criminals. All it's going to go is give law enforcement a place to look to identify where the process of maintaining security over one's firearm ownership/possession breaks down.

Pink:
Maybe that's because there's no efficient and effective way to "mine" the data about gun ownership to determine whether/if there are any patterns associated with one or a group of "somehow related" individuals' losing possession of guns they lawfully obtained.

Red:
Yes, that's true if one is limited to taking a reactive approach to identifying the nature of an illegal weapons trade supply chain. If one wants to take a proactive approach to finding out where to look before once legal weapons make their way to illegal users and then get used to commit a crime or kill another person, one must have a means for identifying logical places to look. A registry provides a useful tool for enabling a proactive approach to the problem.

Blue:
Slippery Slope.

What has happened in other places is no indication of what will happen in the U.S. Moreover, those places don't have our 2nd Amendment so it is no surprise that the outcome you identified was a possible outcome in those place.

Nobody wants to take away one's guns. Officials and everyone else has a vested interest in making sure where they are, in whose possession they are.

Unecessary…they arrest a criminal…they just ask them…where did you get the gun….my cousin bought it for me….no need to register any guns…..

If a gun is stolen….or lost…..registering it means nothing………since guns pass through the criminal underworld for years before they are caught by police…..

Well, that's what we've been doing up to this point. Now if you actually know that to be an effective means for identifying the supply chain elements that effect legal guns getting into the hands of illegal users, tell me what accounts for there having been ~190K guns reports lost/stolen, yet over six million crimes are committed with guns.

Surely you don't believe those 190K guns are being reused for all those 6M+ crimes. So tell me, where are the guns coming from that make their way into the hands of illegal users? Seeing as effectively all guns begin life as legal ones, there must be something (or some combination of things) going on in the supply chain that begins with a manufacturer and that ends with lawful sellers and/or buyers.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

You see the point of proactively "turning off the faucet" is to put illegal seekers of guns into a position where they face ever increasing risk to obtain a gun. The risk that is increasing is the risk that they will be caught in the process of trying to obtain a gun they are not otherwise capable of purchasing legally.

I haven't said it's an overnight solution. It's not. It's a tactic that will work in the long term. The same data mining tactics that marketers can use to predict people's buying habits and interests can be applied to the illegal gun trade. The information is already present. It's just a matter of "connecting the dots," so to speak.

The vast majority of crime guns are reused, and re sold to criminals. And again…….if a gun is lost or stolen ….so what? If it is found in the hands of a criminal…who can't own it in the first place…you just arrest them. No need to register guns to do that. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime…you arrest them….again, no need to register guns to do that.

Take your "cousin" example. If someone's cousin is the one person in their family who has not chosen to pursue a life of crime and can buy a gun, that cousin can effectively supply a community of criminals, both those related to him/her and those not. By making the cousin register the weapons and show ongoing possession of it, the chances of noticing that s/he is a source of supply becomes easier to identify before the guns get used; thus bringing to a halt any further supply from that cousin.

And then….when one of the criminals in the family is caught by the cops…they offer them time off for giving them the guy who gave them the gun…….that is how all police work actually works……and again…no need to register any guns to do that…they are already doing that…..

There are 357 million guns in private hands…….you want to register all of those guns to catch the few criminals……..to essentially turn law abiding citizens into felons if they don't register their legally owned guns, or fail to register the guns….you want to take law abiding people, put them in prison, take their money, take their guns and make it almost impossible for them to get another decent job, because they will be felons……..for simply failing to register a legal, constitutionally protected item…….when they have not used that gun to commit one crime, and have not used that gun to shoot one person…..you want to turn them into felons…….

At the same time…..an actual violent criminal…with an illegal gun, is Constitutionally protected from having to register their illegal gun (Haynes v. United States)…..

And you think that makes any sense?


And could you provide a link for 6 million crimes…you have probably been reading anti gun extremist propaganda…….and need to be corrected….

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course you don't but the government isn't supposed to control the militia so if you want to organize a militia you only need worry about the members of that militia and in all honesty who would join a militia without a gun?

Ever since our nation was founded, the Government controlled the militia at the state level. It was state Governors who called up the militias
If you join a well regulated militia and have a gun, they need to know what training you have had and what guns you are bringing

The constitution does not specify what government entity or that any entity at all should regulate the militia

It doesn't specify a standing Army or an Air Force either

However, the militias of the day were controlled by the Government. If they objected to Government control of militias, they would have said so

That's not how it works

The Constitution explicitly enumerates the rights of the federal government. If it doesn't say regulated by the government then it is not meant to be regulated by the government.

OK...lets go there

Well regulated by whom?

What does the constitution do?

Enumerates the powers of the federal government

But the Army and navy were never considered to be the militia

The founders abhorred the idea of a standing government army and we all know the government has the power to draft any and all men in the country whether they belong to a militia or not

 

[Elvis Obama]

I can't imagine that it will be effective in reducing death rates, but I also don't care about any of the paranoid nonsense people spend their lives brooding over. It's the first step to gun confiscation! Riiiight.