Gun Control question for liberals?

[Marion Morrison]

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

I would argue you can **** off with that. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

I would never argue with someone with a confederate flag. They are unteachable, and that is a historical fact.

You just know you'd lose because your stance is indefensible.

I accept yoar surrender!


Btw, that's not a Confederate flag, dumbass. Shows what you know, huh? Also that you're illiterate.

 

[Rigby5]

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

I would argue you can **** off with that. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

I would never argue with someone with a confederate flag. They are unteachable, and that is a historical fact.

You just know you'd lose because your stance is indefensible.

I accept yoar surrender!


Btw, that's not a Confederate flag, dumbass. Shows what you know, huh? Also that you're illiterate.

Oh, I know. We had one of those on our Georgia Flag, too.

But you know, Dukey~~~Your kind of cute when you are mad!

 

[Marion Morrison]

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

I would argue you can **** off with that. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

I would never argue with someone with a confederate flag. They are unteachable, and that is a historical fact.

You just know you'd lose because your stance is indefensible.

I accept yoar surrender!


Btw, that's not a Confederate flag, dumbass. Shows what you know, huh? Also that you're illiterate.

Oh, I know. We had one of those on our Georgia Flag, too.

But you know, Dukey~~~Your kind of cute when you are mad!

And you're kind of a ****** all the time.

 

[Vandalshandle]

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

 

[Vandalshandle]

I would argue that if you sold a firearm to a person not legally allowed to buy one, through a private transaction, then the law should hold you complicit in any death in which such firearm caused.

I would argue you can **** off with that. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

I would never argue with someone with a confederate flag. They are unteachable, and that is a historical fact.

You just know you'd lose because your stance is indefensible.

I accept yoar surrender!


Btw, that's not a Confederate flag, dumbass. Shows what you know, huh? Also that you're illiterate.

Oh, I know. We had one of those on our Georgia Flag, too.

But you know, Dukey~~~Your kind of cute when you are mad!

And you're kind of a ****** all the time.

I hereby nominate you for Chairperson of the GOP for the next two years! I believe that you can represent them with honesty and sincerity!

 

[Marion Morrison]

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

I don't suppose you saw how I clubbed your commie comrade about the head with reality and he yelped and ran off to lick his wounds.
That's OK, let's see you make the same mistake and I'm gonna hammer you like a 22oz Estwing vs. a picture nail, *****.

 

[Rigby5]

Sorry... Won't fly... You lost me with "on all purchases"...

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Wrong.

Gun registration does absolutely nothing at all to track straw man purchases.
You have no idea what the intend of the purchaser is.
And you already have registration of all new purchases from licensed dealers.

And of course gun registration could not possibly effect unregulated private sales, because if they are unregulated, the government would never know about them.

Thefts are already tracked because the person with the loss will report it to the police on the hope of recovery. If they don't have the serial number, that can easily be obtained by going back to the licensed dealer. Absolutely nothing at all is gained by registration.

The reality is that the whole reason why registration can not possibly work is because of the War on Drugs.
Over half the population is somewhat involved with drugs, and by them being made illegal, all these people are forced to be armed in order to protect themselves.
So they are never going to comply with any senseless attempts are things like registration.
All you would then accomplish is to imprison even more people who should not be imprisoned.

 

[Rigby5]

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

Because people lie. Especially conservatives and criminals.

Then they shouldn't be buying a gun, should they.
The onus is on the felon.
The felon is not supposed to be in possession of a weapon.

Lmao! The onus is on the criminal? Really?

View attachment 268347

Do you think it is somehow my responsibility if someone else decides to break the law?

You probably do.
Are you from one of those states where it's a crime to leave the keys in your car?

Are you a believer in it takes a village?

Yes, if you knowing sell or give a firearm to someone who is not legally allowed to own it who then uses it in a crime you share culpability.

Wrong.
The fault is the government that won't allow anyone but licensed dealer to conduct a background check, in order to find out if someone is not allowed to purchase.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Wrong.

Gun registration does absolutely nothing at all to track straw man purchases.
You have no idea what the intend of the purchaser is.
And you already have registration of all new purchases from licensed dealers.

And of course gun registration could not possibly effect unregulated private sales, because if they are unregulated, the government would never know about them.

Thefts are already tracked because the person with the loss will report it to the police on the hope of recovery. If they don't have the serial number, that can easily be obtained by going back to the licensed dealer. Absolutely nothing at all is gained by registration.

The reality is that the whole reason why registration can not possibly work is because of the War on Drugs.
Over half the population is somewhat involved with drugs, and by them being made illegal, all these people are forced to be armed in order to protect themselves.
So they are never going to comply with any senseless attempts are things like registration.
All you would then accomplish is to imprison even more people who should not be imprisoned.

Cops don't play when there's a stolen gun around here..they make it priority 1. They get 'um.

 

[Rigby5]

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

how does that stop crime?

The only way to determine if a federal gun law effecting all sales of guns of all types in all states will work is to pass one and see. We have never had one. You can't determine how effective it might be based on local laws or laws that effect on certain weapons. If it's a failure, we repeal it but as long as we do nothing the debate will continue along with deaths.

Except that anyone attempting to pass a federal gun law effecting all sales of guns of all types in all states, is a criminal because the Bill of Rights denies any and all federal jurisdiction over weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

I think you meant "precedes" not "precludes".

 

[Rigby5]

The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?

Tenure?

You probably mean tenor.

Liberals are the first ones to stand up for individual liberties that, sometimes, police officers violate.

Very few and far between. The left hate our police, and they don't care if the cops are right or wrong. They still side against them.

The police have a pretty bad history in the US.
If you look at the history of murder in the US, it is clear the 2 main high periods correlate to Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
That is easy to understand because making something commonly used for recreation by poor people illegal, is just going to make the illegal trade more lucrative and tempting.
And since they can't use banks or police for protection, they will have to be armed and there will be more deaths.
So really the main problem has always been police, and not bootleggers or drug dealers.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

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



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

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

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

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

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

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

According to the Bill of Rights, a judge can not legally just issue an order for confiscation based on the claim of threats by one person. The owner of the guns must be given the opportunity first to face their accusers in court.
When a judge issues a restraining order without hearing both sides and cross examination, that is NOT legal.
A judge who does that is criminal.
The fact is it common, does not at all change the fact it is illegal.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

According to the Bill of Rights, a judge can not legally just issue an order for confiscation based on the claim of threats by one person. The owner of the guns must be given the opportunity first to face their accusers in court.
When a judge issues a restraining order without hearing both sides and cross examination, that is NOT legal.
A judge who does that is criminal.
The fact is it common, does not at all change the fact it is illegal.

So, your basis of this statement is what? "... where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated,if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse." Your post definitely implies that only girls falsely claiming abuse was the only reason any guns were confiscated. On the other hand, if they were confiscated illegally, there is a legal remedy for that in the constitution. In short, you offer nothing to indicate that maybe some of these confiscated guns were legally confiscated, and maybe some lives were saved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

how does that stop crime?

The only way to determine if a federal gun law effecting all sales of guns of all types in all states will work is to pass one and see. We have never had one. You can't determine how effective it might be based on local laws or laws that effect on certain weapons. If it's a failure, we repeal it but as long as we do nothing the debate will continue along with deaths.

Is your name Nancy Pelosie? How is the law against private sells of drugs working out?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun registration precludes confiscation, just like 1938 Germany. Did I read you wrong? You're a Nazi instead of a Commie?

You're afraid it will lead to confiscation, there is no reason why it would. You are stating an opinion, not a fact.

Gun registration has already lead to confiscation in the US.
Not only in states like NY and CA, where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated, but they were used to get search warrants and confiscate if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse.

If confiscation were not the reason for registration, they why do it?
There is absolutely nothing at all gained by any weapons registration if not for confiscation.

I don't suppose that any of them were confiscated because a judge had issued a legal restraining order due to a threat the owner made on his girlfriend's life....

According to the Bill of Rights, a judge can not legally just issue an order for confiscation based on the claim of threats by one person. The owner of the guns must be given the opportunity first to face their accusers in court.
When a judge issues a restraining order without hearing both sides and cross examination, that is NOT legal.
A judge who does that is criminal.
The fact is it common, does not at all change the fact it is illegal.

So, your basis of this statement is what? "... where gun laws were changed and guns that were legal for decades suddenly were made illegal and confiscated,if some girl friend wanted to get them in trouble by falsely claiming abuse." Your post definitely implies that only girls falsely claiming abuse was the only reason any guns were confiscated. On the other hand, if they were confiscated illegally, there is a legal remedy for that in the constitution. In short, you offer nothing to indicate that maybe some of these confiscated guns were legally confiscated, and maybe some lives were saved.

I don't give a shit if 99 out of 100 were legally confiscated what if that 1 illegal confiscation was you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, your idea of effective having zero effect?

You can make all gun transfers comply with FFL and it still won't stop illegal sales. That's what we keep tell you. All you are doing is creating more red tape and stopping no gun violence.


.

Do you have any credible data showing universal checks will have no effect? Quoting the NRA or Alex Jones isn't credible data.

black ground checks have done nothing to stop people from being killed with a gun. or have murders stopped happening?

And DWI laws haven't stopped people from getting drunk and causing wrecks. Did you have a point, dumb ass?

So, you are finally agreeing that laws do not prevent crime.

We're finally getting somewhere.

Praise Allah.

.

Laws do prevent crime. Only a childish fool would expect them to stop all crime,

So we create more laws that will not work? now that's childish.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Strict reporting rules?
Are you advocating squealing on your neighbors?

"911, my neighbor, with a Trump sign in his yard, looked a little sad today you need to come get his guns."

I am advocating a national data base that contains all felons, wife beaters, crazies and manic depressives

I also advocate licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms and recording of all sales

We do it for cars, we can do it for guns

How do wife beaters, crazies, and manic depressives (whatever those are), get into the database?

When you say all sales I assume you are including private sales and private transfers.

So you are just going to ignore "Shall not be infringed."

YES.....ALL PRIVATE SALES

Even to your own family

how does that stop crime?

Cuts off access to guns

I am a criminal, but my buddy gets me guns

Since we already have laws preventing sells of firearm to criminals your attempt has already failed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To license an inalienable right is to make that right into a privilege and charge a fee for the free exercise thereof.

We are not agreeing to a license.

Mandatory training for all? Okay. I agree with that. We already have mandatory background checks. Continuing to argue for something we already have demonstrates how you have been misinformed.

.

We have some background checks, but not for all gun sales. Imagine if you only had to gave a safety inspection if you bought a car from a car lot. Individual sales didn't require them.

I have never heard of any place ever mandating safety inspections on any car, ever.
All there has ever been in any of the dozen states I have lived in, is emissions test, and even that is only in large cities. Mandated car inspections likely are illegal.

Unplug the headlamp on one side of your car and drive around at night, that gives LE Probable Cause to stop your car and make sure it is safe. Also, the Coast Guard can arbitrarily board and examine if you vessel has proper safety equipment.

A violation that harms others, like a headlight, is not a safety inspection.
I have never had police or Coast Guard conduct a safety inspection, nor would I see any legal authorization, even though travel is not a right and could endanger others.
Unlike travel, weapons are from the right of defense, and there really can be no equivocation on that.

Yes, the freedom to travel is a constitutional right. Your flailing for some sort of point, any point, has caused your head to overheat, and it's misfiring again.

Sure YOU have every right to walk any where you wish.