"common Sense Gun Laws"

[WinterBorn]

A Registration data base is needed to find out who owns guns in this country. That way they will know who will have to turn in the guns should they ever get another temporary majority of Anti-gun nuts in office. This happened in England and Canada, which is why I don't want to register guns........

Simple solution to that. J ust post rewards to rat out your neighbors who don't turn in their guns.

Meh, heh, heh, heh.

"Hey Bob, the ATF certainly did a number on your house last night. What do you think of my new Mustang?"

So you think there would be a big enough reward to buy a new mustang? Just for ratting out a neighbor?

let's look at the irrational nonsense behind THAT idea.

There are 65 million gun owners. If 2% of them refused to turn in their guns, and the gov't pays rewards (enough to buy a new mustang) to neighbors for being a rat. New mustangs start at $23,600. 2% of 65 million is 1,300,000. To pay enough of a reward to buy a new mustang to 1,300,000 people would require the gov't spend $30,680,000,000. To remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

Yeah, what a brilliant idea.

 

[The Rabbi]

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

2nd Amendment need only apply.

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

The reason why is because knowing who owns those guns will make it easier to punish the violent offenders that break into Citizen X's cache and raids their stash. It also gives police a lead on where a stolen gun originated.

Sorry but I dont need to ask some government bureaucrat for permission to exercise my COnstitutional right. There are 300M guns in this country. We cannot account for all of them. We cannot account for most of them. Only law abiding people will register their guns. And plenty of formerly law abiding people wont. Canada's long gun registry was repealed because it didnt do anything and people were ignoring it.
**** registration. **** "common sense" gun laws. **** the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[The Rabbi]

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

2nd Amendment need only apply.

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

The reason why is because knowing who owns those guns will make it easier to punish the violent offenders that break into Citizen X's cache and raids their stash. It also gives police a lead on where a stolen gun originated.

In all other countries that have banned guns it has always been the first step. So in regards to the Moron statement you can Kiss this and I don't mean my lips.........A country song BTW.

I stand by my assessment of you. Keep your red herring, we are not those countries.

Because "this time it's different"?
Yeah I dont buy that either. NY and CA used registration to go to confiscation. It will happen on the national level too.

 

[JoeB131]

A Registration data base is needed to find out who owns guns in this country. That way they will know who will have to turn in the guns should they ever get another temporary majority of Anti-gun nuts in office. This happened in England and Canada, which is why I don't want to register guns........

Simple solution to that. J ust post rewards to rat out your neighbors who don't turn in their guns.

Meh, heh, heh, heh.

"Hey Bob, the ATF certainly did a number on your house last night. What do you think of my new Mustang?"

you are sounding like Nazi Germany Joe....

Or the USA war on drugs.

 

[JoeB131]

A Registration data base is needed to find out who owns guns in this country. That way they will know who will have to turn in the guns should they ever get another temporary majority of Anti-gun nuts in office. This happened in England and Canada, which is why I don't want to register guns........

Simple solution to that. J ust post rewards to rat out your neighbors who don't turn in their guns.

Meh, heh, heh, heh.

"Hey Bob, the ATF certainly did a number on your house last night. What do you think of my new Mustang?"

So you think there would be a big enough reward to buy a new mustang? Just for ratting out a neighbor?

let's look at the irrational nonsense behind THAT idea.

There are 65 million gun owners. If 2% of them refused to turn in their guns, and the gov't pays rewards (enough to buy a new mustang) to neighbors for being a rat. New mustangs start at $23,600. 2% of 65 million is 1,300,000. To pay enough of a reward to buy a new mustang to 1,300,000 people would require the gov't spend $30,680,000,000. To remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

Yeah, what a brilliant idea.

Your 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries cost the economy 174 BILLION a year in lost productivity and medical costs. So you yeah, even if you took your ridiculous scenario, it would still be a savings.

By other measures, the total cost of gun violence is far greater. The toll amounted to $174 billion in 2010, when including work lost, medical care, pain and suffering, criminal-justice expenses and insurance, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.

 

[WinterBorn]

A Registration data base is needed to find out who owns guns in this country. That way they will know who will have to turn in the guns should they ever get another temporary majority of Anti-gun nuts in office. This happened in England and Canada, which is why I don't want to register guns........

Simple solution to that. J ust post rewards to rat out your neighbors who don't turn in their guns.

Meh, heh, heh, heh.

"Hey Bob, the ATF certainly did a number on your house last night. What do you think of my new Mustang?"

So you think there would be a big enough reward to buy a new mustang? Just for ratting out a neighbor?

let's look at the irrational nonsense behind THAT idea.

There are 65 million gun owners. If 2% of them refused to turn in their guns, and the gov't pays rewards (enough to buy a new mustang) to neighbors for being a rat. New mustangs start at $23,600. 2% of 65 million is 1,300,000. To pay enough of a reward to buy a new mustang to 1,300,000 people would require the gov't spend $30,680,000,000. To remove firearms from law abiding citizens.

Yeah, what a brilliant idea.

Your 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries cost the economy 174 BILLION a year in lost productivity and medical costs. So you yeah, even if you took your ridiculous scenario, it would still be a savings.

By other measures, the total cost of gun violence is far greater. The toll amounted to $174 billion in 2010, when including work lost, medical care, pain and suffering, criminal-justice expenses and insurance, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.

You won't accept the 100k number for civilians who stop a crime with a firearm. But you expect others to accept a number that includes "pain & suffering" and is created by an anti-gun advocacy group?? lmao

And as for my ridiculous scenario, I only took your "do you like my new mustang?" nonsense to its logical end.

 

[Darkwind]

Gun registration serves no useful purpose for liberty and helps no one but government.

In other words, gun registration serves no legitimate purpose at all.

 

[zeke]

IF we were really serious about reducing gun violence in this country, we would target the group most responsible for gun violence. And that would be males under the age of 30.

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Reasonable accommodations could be made for legit use of a gun by a male under thirty. When accompanied by an "adult".

Until the testosterone starts to taper off, having young men with guns is gonna cause unnecessary death and injuries.

but yet that under 30 male can go ******* die on some battlefield in some 3rd world shithole so people like you can ***** and moan .....great post Zeke.....

You trying to make some sort of point? What is it. That you are such a fucked up person that you have no interest at all in reducing gun violence. Just come out and say that and quit wasting time.

It is ******* idiots like you that will not consider ANY steps to curtail gun violence that will ultimately cause gun restrictions that even I won't like.

You stupid ****. If some young man wants to learn the proper way to handle himself and weapons, let them join the military. You got a problem with joining the military? Or you like it that crazy young men with bad attitudes can easily buy guns?

What the **** is wrong with you? Maybe 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns? Show me in the COTUS where it requires people to be a certain age BEFORE they can buy a gun.

Are you so ******* crazy about guns that NO restrictions should be in place? Sounds like it.

Do you want to reduce gun violence in this country or not? Simple question.

 

[WinterBorn]

IF we were really serious about reducing gun violence in this country, we would target the group most responsible for gun violence. And that would be males under the age of 30.

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Reasonable accommodations could be made for legit use of a gun by a male under thirty. When accompanied by an "adult".

Until the testosterone starts to taper off, having young men with guns is gonna cause unnecessary death and injuries.

but yet that under 30 male can go ******* die on some battlefield in some 3rd world shithole so people like you can ***** and moan .....great post Zeke.....

You trying to make some sort of point? What is it. That you are such a fucked up person that you have no interest at all in reducing gun violence. Just come out and say that and quit wasting time.

It is ******* idiots like you that will not consider ANY steps to curtail gun violence that will ultimately cause gun restrictions that even I won't like.

You stupid ****. If some young man wants to learn the proper way to handle himself and weapons, let them join the military. You got a problem with joining the military? Or you like it that crazy young men with bad attitudes can easily buy guns?

What the **** is wrong with you? Maybe 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns? Show me in the COTUS where it requires people to be a certain age BEFORE they can buy a gun.

Are you so ******* crazy about guns that NO restrictions should be in place? Sounds like it.

Do you want to reduce gun violence in this country or not? Simple question.

I think there is a legitimate issue with young men being able to be dropped in some 3rd world hell hole to fight (with automatic weapons) but when they come home they can't go hunting or target shooting without an escort. Whether you and Harry want to trim back the name calling and sensationalism long enough to discuss it remains to be seen.

I do believe that hunting would die out completely if those under 30 could not own a firearm.

 

[jon_berzerk]

no such thing

 

[jon_berzerk]

Registration - not as permission to own guns, but as proof of ownership.

Tougher sentencing for offenders who own a stolen and/or unregistered gun (10 years, out in 5 with good behavior; separate charge for each unregistered/stolen weapon), mandated to run consecutively with any other convictions.

This kind of legislation empowers government to fight true gun violence, because laws designed to punish the law-abiding gun owners are counterproductive since criminals will ignore them anyway.

registration = confiscation

 

[jon_berzerk]

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

2nd Amendment need only apply.

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

The reason why is because knowing who owns those guns will make it easier to punish the violent offenders that break into Citizen X's cache and raids their stash. It also gives police a lead on where a stolen gun originated.

not all firearms require a serial number

there are million of them out there like that already

 

[NoNukes]

Registration - not as permission to own guns, but as proof of ownership.

Tougher sentencing for offenders who own a stolen and/or unregistered gun (10 years, out in 5 with good behavior; separate charge for each unregistered/stolen weapon), mandated to run consecutively with any other convictions.

This kind of legislation empowers government to fight true gun violence, because laws designed to punish the law-abiding gun owners are counterproductive since criminals will ignore them anyway.

In every single country that created a registry.... the registry was then used to "remove" the registered guns.

This is not true, and probably why you did not provide any proof.

 

[zeke]

IF we were really serious about reducing gun violence in this country, we would target the group most responsible for gun violence. And that would be males under the age of 30.

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Reasonable accommodations could be made for legit use of a gun by a male under thirty. When accompanied by an "adult".

Until the testosterone starts to taper off, having young men with guns is gonna cause unnecessary death and injuries.

but yet that under 30 male can go ******* die on some battlefield in some 3rd world shithole so people like you can ***** and moan .....great post Zeke.....

You trying to make some sort of point? What is it. That you are such a fucked up person that you have no interest at all in reducing gun violence. Just come out and say that and quit wasting time.

It is ******* idiots like you that will not consider ANY steps to curtail gun violence that will ultimately cause gun restrictions that even I won't like.

You stupid ****. If some young man wants to learn the proper way to handle himself and weapons, let them join the military. You got a problem with joining the military? Or you like it that crazy young men with bad attitudes can easily buy guns?

What the **** is wrong with you? Maybe 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns? Show me in the COTUS where it requires people to be a certain age BEFORE they can buy a gun.

Are you so ******* crazy about guns that NO restrictions should be in place? Sounds like it.

Do you want to reduce gun violence in this country or not? Simple question.

I think there is a legitimate issue with young men being able to be dropped in some 3rd world hell hole to fight (with automatic weapons) but when they come home they can't go hunting or target shooting without an escort. Whether you and Harry want to trim back the name calling and sensationalism long enough to discuss it remains to be seen.

I do believe that hunting would die out completely if those under 30 could not own a firearm.

So that's what you want to focus on eh? The fact that a very small percentage of the population (men in the service under that age of 30) wouldn't have as easy access to weapons outside of the military.

You ever bother to look at the demographics of gun violence? Who is it that commits the most crazy shootings? You've never bothered to look have you. Mostly it is men under the age of 30. Unbridled aggression., to much testosterone, to little good common sense.

But you all are so concerned with the military age men having guns. Suicide rate still going up in the military? WOW some soldier having problems won't be able to so easily kill themselves if they can't easily buy a gun.
Might ever keep one of them alive. But you aren't interested in that. They might want to go hunting. Of course they still could.

Hunting die out? You're shitting me. I know three men who are in tree stands right now. None of the three are close to 30. How could that be? You think people over 30 don't want to eat? Come on you are really stretching it there.

Just come out and say it. You are scared that if there is one reasonable restriction on guns to reduce gun violence, there would be precedent for trying other ideas. And that's what really scares you. There might be other good ideas to follow.
There it is. You gun lovers have been saying for decades that no restrictions will work But you don't know cause they haven't been tried. And if they did work and reduced gun violence, what would you all say then?

Hey, according to your numbers, there were 273 DGU YESTERDAY. How do you confirm that number?
273 x 365 = 99,999.

 

[WinterBorn]

IF we were really serious about reducing gun violence in this country, we would target the group most responsible for gun violence. And that would be males under the age of 30.

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Reasonable accommodations could be made for legit use of a gun by a male under thirty. When accompanied by an "adult".

Until the testosterone starts to taper off, having young men with guns is gonna cause unnecessary death and injuries.

but yet that under 30 male can go ******* die on some battlefield in some 3rd world shithole so people like you can ***** and moan .....great post Zeke.....

You trying to make some sort of point? What is it. That you are such a fucked up person that you have no interest at all in reducing gun violence. Just come out and say that and quit wasting time.

It is ******* idiots like you that will not consider ANY steps to curtail gun violence that will ultimately cause gun restrictions that even I won't like.

You stupid ****. If some young man wants to learn the proper way to handle himself and weapons, let them join the military. You got a problem with joining the military? Or you like it that crazy young men with bad attitudes can easily buy guns?

What the **** is wrong with you? Maybe 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns? Show me in the COTUS where it requires people to be a certain age BEFORE they can buy a gun.

Are you so ******* crazy about guns that NO restrictions should be in place? Sounds like it.

Do you want to reduce gun violence in this country or not? Simple question.

I think there is a legitimate issue with young men being able to be dropped in some 3rd world hell hole to fight (with automatic weapons) but when they come home they can't go hunting or target shooting without an escort. Whether you and Harry want to trim back the name calling and sensationalism long enough to discuss it remains to be seen.

I do believe that hunting would die out completely if those under 30 could not own a firearm.

So that's what you want to focus on eh? The fact that a very small percentage of the population (men in the service under that age of 30) wouldn't have as easy access to weapons outside of the military.

You ever bother to look at the demographics of gun violence? Who is it that commits the most crazy shootings? You've never bothered to look have you. Mostly it is men under the age of 30. Unbridled aggression., to much testosterone, to little good common sense.

But you all are so concerned with the military age men having guns. Suicide rate still going up in the military? WOW some soldier having problems won't be able to so easily kill themselves if they can't easily buy a gun.
Might ever keep one of them alive. But you aren't interested in that. They might want to go hunting. Of course they still could.

Hunting die out? You're shitting me. I know three men who are in tree stands right now. None of the three are close to 30. How could that be? You think people over 30 don't want to eat? Come on you are really stretching it there.

Just come out and say it. You are scared that if there is one reasonable restriction on guns to reduce gun violence, there would be precedent for trying other ideas. And that's what really scares you. There might be other good ideas to follow.
There it is. You gun lovers have been saying for decades that no restrictions will work But you don't know cause they haven't been tried. And if they did work and reduced gun violence, what would you all say then?

Hey, according to your numbers, there were 273 DGU YESTERDAY. How do you confirm that number?
273 x 365 = 99,999.

Jeez, take a breath, willya?

Yes, hunting could die out quite easily with the restrictions you want. Did I say it would end immediately? No, that is not even close to what I said. Does the phrase "die out" sound like a sudden thing or a gradual one? But the simple fact is that if hunting is relegated to only those over 30 or those accompanied by someone over 30, the number of young hunters will be virtually nil. And in a few years.........?

As for the soldiers committing suicide, I have yet to see anything that shows a lack of firearms means someone who truly wants to commit suicide will not do it. It really is a stretch to say it would change the suicide rates.

And I will not say that I am scared of reasonable restrictions. I am not. This idea that you anti-gun folks have that someone is either on your side or they are scared of any changes or restrictions is nuts. I am open to dialogue about guns. But this "DO IT MY WAY OR ADMIT YOU ARE SCARED!!!" tact is simply ridiculous. I have tried to engage you in conversations numerous times, and you always resort to either ridicule or name calling. Is that really the way you want to hold a discussion? Sad.

 

[zeke]

IF we were really serious about reducing gun violence in this country, we would target the group most responsible for gun violence. And that would be males under the age of 30.

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Reasonable accommodations could be made for legit use of a gun by a male under thirty. When accompanied by an "adult".

Until the testosterone starts to taper off, having young men with guns is gonna cause unnecessary death and injuries.

but yet that under 30 male can go ******* die on some battlefield in some 3rd world shithole so people like you can ***** and moan .....great post Zeke.....

You trying to make some sort of point? What is it. That you are such a fucked up person that you have no interest at all in reducing gun violence. Just come out and say that and quit wasting time.

It is ******* idiots like you that will not consider ANY steps to curtail gun violence that will ultimately cause gun restrictions that even I won't like.

You stupid ****. If some young man wants to learn the proper way to handle himself and weapons, let them join the military. You got a problem with joining the military? Or you like it that crazy young men with bad attitudes can easily buy guns?

What the **** is wrong with you? Maybe 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns? Show me in the COTUS where it requires people to be a certain age BEFORE they can buy a gun.

Are you so ******* crazy about guns that NO restrictions should be in place? Sounds like it.

Do you want to reduce gun violence in this country or not? Simple question.

I think there is a legitimate issue with young men being able to be dropped in some 3rd world hell hole to fight (with automatic weapons) but when they come home they can't go hunting or target shooting without an escort. Whether you and Harry want to trim back the name calling and sensationalism long enough to discuss it remains to be seen.

I do believe that hunting would die out completely if those under 30 could not own a firearm.

So that's what you want to focus on eh? The fact that a very small percentage of the population (men in the service under that age of 30) wouldn't have as easy access to weapons outside of the military.

You ever bother to look at the demographics of gun violence? Who is it that commits the most crazy shootings? You've never bothered to look have you. Mostly it is men under the age of 30. Unbridled aggression., to much testosterone, to little good common sense.

But you all are so concerned with the military age men having guns. Suicide rate still going up in the military? WOW some soldier having problems won't be able to so easily kill themselves if they can't easily buy a gun.
Might ever keep one of them alive. But you aren't interested in that. They might want to go hunting. Of course they still could.

Hunting die out? You're shitting me. I know three men who are in tree stands right now. None of the three are close to 30. How could that be? You think people over 30 don't want to eat? Come on you are really stretching it there.

Just come out and say it. You are scared that if there is one reasonable restriction on guns to reduce gun violence, there would be precedent for trying other ideas. And that's what really scares you. There might be other good ideas to follow.
There it is. You gun lovers have been saying for decades that no restrictions will work But you don't know cause they haven't been tried. And if they did work and reduced gun violence, what would you all say then?

Hey, according to your numbers, there were 273 DGU YESTERDAY. How do you confirm that number?
273 x 365 = 99,999.

Jeez, take a breath, willya?

Yes, hunting could die out quite easily with the restrictions you want. Did I say it would end immediately? No, that is not even close to what I said. Does the phrase "die out" sound like a sudden thing or a gradual one? But the simple fact is that if hunting is relegated to only those over 30 or those accompanied by someone over 30, the number of young hunters will be virtually nil. And in a few years.........?

As for the soldiers committing suicide, I have yet to see anything that shows a lack of firearms means someone who truly wants to commit suicide will not do it. It really is a stretch to say it would change the suicide rates.

And I will not say that I am scared of reasonable restrictions. I am not. This idea that you anti-gun folks have that someone is either on your side or they are scared of any changes or restrictions is nuts. I am open to dialogue about guns. But this "DO IT MY WAY OR ADMIT YOU ARE SCARED!!!" tact is simply ridiculous. I have tried to engage you in conversations numerous times, and you always resort to either ridicule or name calling. Is that really the way you want to hold a discussion? Sad.

What is there to "discuss"? You are making bullshit claims. ie hunting will die out.

Did you ever answer my question as to who commits most of the crazy shooting in this country. No you ignored that. Even though it is men under the age of 30. If you are gonna deny that stat, what's to talk about. It's the truth you are denying.

Did you ever answer my question as to how DGU info is collected? No.

These are legit questions that should be discussed. You refuse. Again, what is to talk about?

Maybe you just want to stick with recreational shooting. Resolving problems don't seem to be your "thang".
Or is the fact that young men under 30 account for most of the crazy shootings not really a problem?

You present your version of the "facts" and I ask questions and offered a possible solution. We aren't discussing anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

IF we were really serious about reducing gun violence in this country, we would target the group most responsible for gun violence. And that would be males under the age of 30.

Simply raise the legal age limit where a male of any race can buy a gun up to the age of 30. Increase the penalties for using a gun to commit a crime or even the act of having a gun would cause jail time.

Reasonable accommodations could be made for legit use of a gun by a male under thirty. When accompanied by an "adult".

Until the testosterone starts to taper off, having young men with guns is gonna cause unnecessary death and injuries.

but yet that under 30 male can go ******* die on some battlefield in some 3rd world shithole so people like you can ***** and moan .....great post Zeke.....

You trying to make some sort of point? What is it. That you are such a fucked up person that you have no interest at all in reducing gun violence. Just come out and say that and quit wasting time.

It is ******* idiots like you that will not consider ANY steps to curtail gun violence that will ultimately cause gun restrictions that even I won't like.

You stupid ****. If some young man wants to learn the proper way to handle himself and weapons, let them join the military. You got a problem with joining the military? Or you like it that crazy young men with bad attitudes can easily buy guns?

What the **** is wrong with you? Maybe 15 year old kids should be able to buy guns? Show me in the COTUS where it requires people to be a certain age BEFORE they can buy a gun.

Are you so ******* crazy about guns that NO restrictions should be in place? Sounds like it.

Do you want to reduce gun violence in this country or not? Simple question.

Zeke, all of us would be happy to take steps to reduce gun violence. But all the measures mentioned will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do that. And they will impose costs/hardships on people who are not committing gun violence.
So if you have a solution that:
1) Is reasonably certain to reduce gun violence, and
2) Will not overly burden legitimate gun owners
We'd all like to hear it.
If you dont, then just STFU

 

[Harry Dresden]

A Registration data base is needed to find out who owns guns in this country. That way they will know who will have to turn in the guns should they ever get another temporary majority of Anti-gun nuts in office. This happened in England and Canada, which is why I don't want to register guns........

Simple solution to that. J ust post rewards to rat out your neighbors who don't turn in their guns.

Meh, heh, heh, heh.

"Hey Bob, the ATF certainly did a number on your house last night. What do you think of my new Mustang?"

you are sounding like Nazi Germany Joe....

Or the USA war on drugs.

i dont recall anyone telling everyone to tell on your neighbors....

 

[martybegan]

Registration - not as permission to own guns, but as proof of ownership.

Tougher sentencing for offenders who own a stolen and/or unregistered gun (10 years, out in 5 with good behavior; separate charge for each unregistered/stolen weapon), mandated to run consecutively with any other convictions.

This kind of legislation empowers government to fight true gun violence, because laws designed to punish the law-abiding gun owners are counterproductive since criminals will ignore them anyway.

Never. You know the grabbers will use registration as a bar to ownership unless a person shows "they need a gun". All you need to do is look at NYC as an example.

 

[martybegan]

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

2nd Amendment need only apply.

Moron, registration is not incompatible with the 2nd amendment if it is implemented intelligently.

As I stated, guns should not be registered as if one is applying for permission to own them, but as an informative tool so the government knows "Citizen X has "N" number of guns with these serial numbers".

The reason why is because knowing who owns those guns will make it easier to punish the violent offenders that break into Citizen X's cache and raids their stash. It also gives police a lead on where a stolen gun originated.

You operate under the assumption that the gun grabbers will not (they swear) use said registration process to make it harder for a person to get a gun.