HYPOCRISY, Thy Name Is 'DEMOCRAT': Democrats Leave Capitol To March For Gun Control With Students

[Humorme]

I have a better idea. Make it illegal to sell someone a firearm if SOMEONE IS A THREAT TO THEMSELVES AND / OR SOCIETY.

That's already illegal. (JGalt)

NOPE. It is illegal for certain people to own firearms, especially felons. It is not illegal to sell them a firearm without a background check as a private dealer, as long as you do not know that he is not legally allowed to possess such firearm. Sort of a "Don't ask, Don't tell."

Why do you want dangerous people to be running amok in a free society? Would you feel better if they killed your family with a knife, machete, poison, or homemade bomb?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a better idea. Make it illegal to sell someone a firearm if SOMEONE IS A THREAT TO THEMSELVES AND / OR SOCIETY.

That's already illegal. (JGalt)

NOPE. It is illegal for certain people to own firearms, especially felons. It is not illegal to sell them a firearm without a background check as a private dealer, as long as you do not know that he is not legally allowed to possess such firearm. Sort of a "Don't ask, Don't tell."

Why do you want dangerous people to be running amok in a free society? Would you feel better if they killed your family with a knife, machete, poison, or homemade bomb?

Not even worthy of being dignified with a serious response.

 

[Humorme]

I have a better idea. Make it illegal to sell someone a firearm if SOMEONE IS A THREAT TO THEMSELVES AND / OR SOCIETY.

That's already illegal. (JGalt)

NOPE. It is illegal for certain people to own firearms, especially felons. It is not illegal to sell them a firearm without a background check as a private dealer, as long as you do not know that he is not legally allowed to possess such firearm. Sort of a "Don't ask, Don't tell."

Why do you want dangerous people to be running amok in a free society? Would you feel better if they killed your family with a knife, machete, poison, or homemade bomb?

Not even worthy of being dignified with a serious response.

And yet you saw fit to respond. Those who want gun control are satisfied to have dangerous people running around, unsupervised. Otherwise, they would add new ideas to the discussion and do something to prevent shootings instead of trying to take the Rights of the people.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have a better idea. Make it illegal to sell someone a firearm if SOMEONE IS A THREAT TO THEMSELVES AND / OR SOCIETY.

That's already illegal. (JGalt)

NOPE. It is illegal for certain people to own firearms, especially felons. It is not illegal to sell them a firearm without a background check as a private dealer, as long as you do not know that he is not legally allowed to possess such firearm. Sort of a "Don't ask, Don't tell."

Why do you want dangerous people to be running amok in a free society? Would you feel better if they killed your family with a knife, machete, poison, or homemade bomb?

Not even worthy of being dignified with a serious response.

And yet you saw fit to respond. Those who want gun control are satisfied to have dangerous people running around, unsupervised. Otherwise, they would add new ideas to the discussion and do something to prevent shootings instead of trying to take the Rights of the people.

Guess what, Humor. if you require a background check on ALL firearm purchasers, and such check reveals that the potential buyer is a convicted felon, thus blocking the sale, you have, in fact prevented a shooting.Is that too complicated for you to understand? As long as we are on the subject, why not simply drop background checks altogether, since you and the NRA have left a hole in the law big enough to drive a freight train through? BTW, so your idea is to lock up convicted felons for the rest of their lives just to keep guns out of their hands? i don't think you have thought that through, Humor.

 

[easyt65]

and drumpf goes to play golf while millions tell him and the nra to kiss our asses ,,, get your resumes ready

'Hypocrisy, thy name is EDWARD37'!

Barry criticized Bush for paying golf while or troops were in harm's way .... Bush immediately stopped playing gold. as soon as Barry went into the WH - with troops in harm's way - he began playing golf and set a new Presidential record for amount of golf played.

 

[Vandalshandle]

and drumpf goes to play golf while millions tell him and the nra to kiss our asses ,,, get your resumes ready

'Hypocrisy, thy name is EDWARD37'!

Barry criticized Bush for paying golf while or troops were in harm's way .... Bush immediately stopped playing gold. as soon as Barry went into the WH - with troops in harm's way - he began playing golf and set a new Presidential record for amount of golf played.

Wow! That record didn't last long, did it?

 

[easyt65]

and drumpf goes to play golf while millions tell him and the nra to kiss our asses ,,, get your resumes ready

'Hypocrisy, thy name is EDWARD37'!

Barry criticized Bush for paying golf while or troops were in harm's way .... Bush immediately stopped playing gold. as soon as Barry went into the WH - with troops in harm's way - he began playing golf and set a new Presidential record for amount of golf played.

Wow! That record didn't last long, did it?

Barry's jealous another one of his 'Legacy' records fell, huh?!

 

[edward37]

and drumpf goes to play golf while millions tell him and the nra to kiss our asses ,,, get your resumes ready

'Hypocrisy, thy name is EDWARD37'!

Barry criticized Bush for paying golf while or troops were in harm's way .... Bush immediately stopped playing gold. as soon as Barry went into the WH - with troops in harm's way - he began playing golf and set a new Presidential record for amount of golf played.

whatever the record ,drumph broke it in only his 1st year

 

[Flopper]

The purpose of gun registration is not to limit access to guns but to ensure gun owner accountability and help law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. Despite the clear advantages inherent in registration laws, few states have such laws on the books—and some prohibit them outright.

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

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.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

What is really wrong with registering guns? We register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration.

The slogan or talking point “registration always leads to confiscation” has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history, long before anyone was talking about registering them.

There are many countries that require registration and there is no wholesale seizure of legal firearms. In Switzerland and Germany, and dozens of other countries gun registration is required and rarely does the police seize legally registered guns.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms ensures gun owner accountability and helps law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. It will enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms. Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.

Information generated by firearm registration systems can also help protect law enforcement officers responding to an incident by providing them with information about whether firearms may be present at the scene and, if so, how many and what types. This will can not only save lives of law enforcement officers but other members of the community. All too often we read of innocent people running out of a house to a police car and being shot.

 

[Humorme]

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

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.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

What is really wrong with registering guns? We register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration.

The slogan or talking point “registration always leads to confiscation” has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history, long before anyone was talking about registering them.

There are many countries that require registration and there is no wholesale seizure of legal firearms. In Switzerland and Germany, and dozens of other countries gun registration is required and rarely does the police seize legally registered guns.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms ensures gun owner accountability and helps law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. It will enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms. Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.

Information generated by firearm registration systems can also help protect law enforcement officers responding to an incident by providing them with information about whether firearms may be present at the scene and, if so, how many and what types. This will can not only save lives of law enforcement officers but other members of the community. All too often we read of innocent people running out of a house to a police car and being shot.

What is wrong with registering guns?

It is the road to confiscation. It is a violation of my Right to privacy. In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois outlawed handguns and used the registry of those who had registered firearms to turn them in or otherwise prove that they had been disposed of. Let history be your guide.

California has passed laws to confiscate magazines for firearms:

NRA-ILA | In California, Confiscation Is No Longer A Threat. It’s The Law.

Might I add that it is unconstitutional to make something illegal after you legally did something? It's in Article1 Section 8 of the Constitution barring ex post facto laws? Congress and the courts have found novel ways to work around that as well.

Your argument implies that if one illegal act is tolerable, then there should be no problem with extending the infringements. That's the worst logic I ever heard. Take for example, registering a marriage:

The real reason we register marriages and human beings in general is not for some lawful purpose. We do that in order to tax and control human beings. A marriage contract, for example, boils down to a contract between you, your spouse and the government. Then, your child is not your child, but rather property of the state. If you want to bring up your child as an atheist and your spouse wants to bring up your child as a Christian, it is the state that will make that decision. They are not your children. They are wards of the state.

The balance of your post is bogus. No matter how many guns you register, no LEO can tell what he's up against. Guns can be stolen, borrowed, or bought on the black market. It's better that the LEO be informed of what kind of people he may be up against. I've offered some great ideas along those lines. Registering guns does not do ANY of the things you claim. Chicago is proof of that.

Finally, places like Switzerland are not full of left wing, communist loons that want America totally disarmed. The objective of the left is to register and then outlaw weapons. Personally, I have suggested ideas that would do more to slow down the number of firearm related shootings without resorting to gun control that registration could EVER accomplish. The left won't even discuss the issue because if gun control is not a part of the discussion, then there be NO discussion. This issue is not about saving lives or preventing crimes. For, if you cannot pass gun control, there are other alternatives to reduce crime, save lives, and dramatically slow down firearm related violence. The left is not interested and I'm not inclined to compromise with the people that fed you those irrational lies that registration helps reduce crime.

If you want to talk about saving lives, let's try an approach that does just that without gun control. Let's negotiate that. If it fails, we can come back to gun control AND say you tried to save lives without implement gun control. We outlawed civilian use of fully auto weapons; compromised by banning semi-automatic imports, went along with the background checks, tried the so - called Assault Weapon Ban, remained silent when the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment was passed. America has said little when BATFE has put thousands of idiotic regulations on the books.

So, it's time to admit that gun control isn't working - or you wouldn't be begging for more. This time YOU need to sit back, listen, and consider ideas that WILL make a difference WITHOUT GUN CONTROL.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong.....do you realize that criminals do not have to register their illegal guns......do you even understand that?

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshalldid not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm.

That fact...right there, undermines your entire point.....and on top of that, registration does not solve one crime, and it doesn't stop any criminal or mass shooter......

The only reason to register guns is to later confiscate them....we know this from actual experience...Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California, Chicago....all registered guns and then later confiscated them

Here ..... a quick primer on gun registration.....

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.




What's wrong with a registry?

But gun registries have a number of problems. For one, they don’t solve crimes.

Canada’s experience with a long-gun registry illustrates this. After having spent some two billion dollars, the program was found to be ineffective at solving crimes or keeping people safe.

The State of Maryland has had a similar experience with its ballistic fingerprint records, finding that in fifteen years, only twenty-six cases were aided by the registry, and in those cases, law enforcement already knew which guns were involved.

All of this, of course, is in addition to the major question of how we would register American guns in the first place, considering the hundreds of millions here presently and our porous borders.

What registries do allow is confiscation. The experience in Britain of gun control worsening over time illustrates this. The same is true for Australia. And we’ve seen attempts to do the same thing in New York and California.

And then there’s the more basic question of privacy.

This is a concern that goes broader and deeper than just gun rights. Whether we’re talking about the NSA’s spying on our e-mail and telephone calls or the FBI’s desire to have a door opened for them into iPhones, it is abundantly clear that government wants easy access to our personal lives, in spite of and in contradiction to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A gun registry would simply be yet another example of this.

I’m sure that all of these points are a case of preaching to the choir, but as I was told once, even the choir needs to hear a good sermon now and then. In the battles over gun control, we risk letting some things slip through when confronted with a flurry of demands, and it’s up to us to make sure bad ideas are not converted into laws.

---

The gun registry’s legacy – creating needless paperwork criminals

The latter statement may not sound like a direct threat to restore the registry. But going after thugs, gang members and smugglers with street guns is very dangerous and expensive. So Liberals often choose the easy way out and burden legitimate owners, instead, just so they can give the appearance of taking action.


Recall that during the tumultuous flooding in High River, Alberta in the spring of 2013, Mounties went door-to-door breaking into hundreds of homes looking for firearms. In the name of finding survivors, officers searched homes that were untouched by flood waters but where, it was later learned, there were registry records of guns in the home.

During some searches, Mounties also seemed to be checking list of guns from the registry, even though all registry records were supposed to have been deleted nearly a year earlier.

But what if the Liberals have figured out they don’t need a new registry to achieve their ultimate goal or a Canada in which only the police and military have guns?

A new study by emeritus business professor and firearms researcher Gary Mauser, released on Thursday, shows that despite gun-controllers rhetoric about concentrating on criminals misusing firearms, it has been legitimate gunowners who have born the brunt of federal firearms enforcement.

Mauser discovered that between 1998, when the Liberals’ registry came into effect, and 2016 there were an average 3,000 registration-related firearms charges laid each year. In 96 per cent of those cases, the registry-related charges were the only ones filed.

Put another way, in only four per cent of registry-related charges was any violence alleged.

The Chretien registry did exactly what gunowners predicted it would do – create a new class of paperwork criminal.

The registry did not scoop up a lot of real criminals in its net – murderers, robbers, drug dealers. Those criminals were never going to abide by laws requiring them to register their guns.

Instead, the registry, even under the Harper Tories, created upwards of 3,000 “criminals” a year. Their only crime was failing to complete Ottawa’s draconian paperwork or comply with the feds’ ultra-confusing “safe storage” rules.

But because the Liberals were so obsessed with their registry in the 1990s, they made administrative infractions into crimes and thus disarmed as many as 60,000 otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

What is really wrong with registering guns? We register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration.

The slogan or talking point “registration always leads to confiscation” has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history, long before anyone was talking about registering them.

There are many countries that require registration and there is no wholesale seizure of legal firearms. In Switzerland and Germany, and dozens of other countries gun registration is required and rarely does the police seize legally registered guns.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms ensures gun owner accountability and helps law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. It will enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms. Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.

Information generated by firearm registration systems can also help protect law enforcement officers responding to an incident by providing them with information about whether firearms may be present at the scene and, if so, how many and what types. This will can not only save lives of law enforcement officers but other members of the community. All too often we read of innocent people running out of a house to a police car and being shot.

Wow...you actually cited Germany in that post.....Germany, where they registered guns in the 1920s and in the 1930s they used those same lists to confiscate guns, and then shipped the owners to death camps, gas chambers and mass graves...

Britain, Australia, Canada. New York, Chicago, California......all required registration, all confiscated guns...even Switzerland has their anti gun movement trying to take guns....

Again......registration does not help the police solve crimes.....you have been shown actual statements from law enforcment that show this...that is a lie and you keep pushing it.....a stolen gun is not registered to the criminal who commits the crime....

And every call a police officer goes to is assumed to have at least one gun ,the cops, involved........

This is just a scam to get registration...so you can confiscate all guns.....you guys told us this at the CNN Town Hall and at the rally, and your Supreme Court justice stated the goal in his op ed yesterday.......

Registration = Confiscation.....

Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....

 

[2aguy]

I have a better idea. Make it illegal to sell someone a firearm if SOMEONE IS A THREAT TO THEMSELVES AND / OR SOCIETY.

That's already illegal. (JGalt)

NOPE. It is illegal for certain people to own firearms, especially felons. It is not illegal to sell them a firearm without a background check as a private dealer, as long as you do not know that he is not legally allowed to possess such firearm. Sort of a "Don't ask, Don't tell."

Why do you want dangerous people to be running amok in a free society? Would you feel better if they killed your family with a knife, machete, poison, or homemade bomb?

Not even worthy of being dignified with a serious response.

And yet you saw fit to respond. Those who want gun control are satisfied to have dangerous people running around, unsupervised. Otherwise, they would add new ideas to the discussion and do something to prevent shootings instead of trying to take the Rights of the people.

Guess what, Humor. if you require a background check on ALL firearm purchasers, and such check reveals that the potential buyer is a convicted felon, thus blocking the sale, you have, in fact prevented a shooting.Is that too complicated for you to understand? As long as we are on the subject, why not simply drop background checks altogether, since you and the NRA have left a hole in the law big enough to drive a freight train through? BTW, so your idea is to lock up convicted felons for the rest of their lives just to keep guns out of their hands? i don't think you have thought that through, Humor.

Wrong.....actual felons use straw buyers to buy their guns....so they get the straw buyer to buy the gun going through current federal background checks...and passing, which means...doofus...that those same straw buyers will pass a background check for a private sale...

Or the felon will steal his gun.....no background check needed for that.....

 

[easyt65]

The high court's ruling in favor of Haynes is exactly why, gun registration should be mandatory without exception. With the ease of transportation of guns across state lines, our current state laws that regulate gun ownership are ridiculous. It has to be at the federal level and it will happen eventually.

Secondly, owners, that do not secure their firearms should bear some responsibility for crimes committed with their guns. A study at John Hopkins found that 54% of gun owners do not store their guns safely. The researchers defined safe storage as being in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case; locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. The favored places for storing guns were in unlocked desks and drawers, bedside tables, and on closet shelves, all of which are easily accessed by children and thieves.

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

What is really wrong with registering guns? We register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration.

The slogan or talking point “registration always leads to confiscation” has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history, long before anyone was talking about registering them.

There are many countries that require registration and there is no wholesale seizure of legal firearms. In Switzerland and Germany, and dozens of other countries gun registration is required and rarely does the police seize legally registered guns.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms ensures gun owner accountability and helps law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. It will enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms. Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.

Information generated by firearm registration systems can also help protect law enforcement officers responding to an incident by providing them with information about whether firearms may be present at the scene and, if so, how many and what types. This will can not only save lives of law enforcement officers but other members of the community. All too often we read of innocent people running out of a house to a police car and being shot.

What is wrong with registering guns?

It is the road to confiscation. It is a violation of my Right to privacy. In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois outlawed handguns and used the registry of those who had registered firearms to turn them in or otherwise prove that they had been disposed of. Let history be your guide.

California has passed laws to confiscate magazines for firearms:

NRA-ILA | In California, Confiscation Is No Longer A Threat. It’s The Law.

Might I add that it is unconstitutional to make something illegal after you legally did something? It's in Article1 Section 8 of the Constitution barring ex post facto laws? Congress and the courts have found novel ways to work around that as well.

Your argument implies that if one illegal act is tolerable, then there should be no problem with extending the infringements. That's the worst logic I ever heard. Take for example, registering a marriage:

The real reason we register marriages and human beings in general is not for some lawful purpose. We do that in order to tax and control human beings. A marriage contract, for example, boils down to a contract between you, your spouse and the government. Then, your child is not your child, but rather property of the state. If you want to bring up your child as an atheist and your spouse wants to bring up your child as a Christian, it is the state that will make that decision. They are not your children. They are wards of the state.

The balance of your post is bogus. No matter how many guns you register, no LEO can tell what he's up against. Guns can be stolen, borrowed, or bought on the black market. It's better that the LEO be informed of what kind of people he may be up against. I've offered some great ideas along those lines. Registering guns does not do ANY of the things you claim. Chicago is proof of that.

Finally, places like Switzerland are not full of left wing, communist loons that want America totally disarmed. The objective of the left is to register and then outlaw weapons. Personally, I have suggested ideas that would do more to slow down the number of firearm related shootings without resorting to gun control that registration could EVER accomplish. The left won't even discuss the issue because if gun control is not a part of the discussion, then there be NO discussion. This issue is not about saving lives or preventing crimes. For, if you cannot pass gun control, there are other alternatives to reduce crime, save lives, and dramatically slow down firearm related violence. The left is not interested and I'm not inclined to compromise with the people that fed you those irrational lies that registration helps reduce crime.

If you want to talk about saving lives, let's try an approach that does just that without gun control. Let's negotiate that. If it fails, we can come back to gun control AND say you tried to save lives without implement gun control. We outlawed civilian use of fully auto weapons; compromised by banning semi-automatic imports, went along with the background checks, tried the so - called Assault Weapon Ban, remained silent when the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment was passed. America has said little when BATFE has put thousands of idiotic regulations on the books.

So, it's time to admit that gun control isn't working - or you wouldn't be begging for more. This time YOU need to sit back, listen, and consider ideas that WILL make a difference WITHOUT GUN CONTROL.

This is a 'stretch' (some argue NOT), but...

Let's say Vlad invades the US...Let's say Russia invades Alaska and gets a foothold, digging in before we can drive his troops back / out. Not only do they have to worry about the US military (down in the lower 48), America, like Alaska, is filled with gun-loving/owning US citizens they will have to worry about. It makes their effort a lot easier being able to stroll into a court house / access govt records and instantly know who has weapons and what type, which allows them to start rounding people up / confiscating guns, eliminating the threat they face from the people living in the area they just took over.

 

[Humorme]

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

What is really wrong with registering guns? We register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration.

The slogan or talking point “registration always leads to confiscation” has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history, long before anyone was talking about registering them.

There are many countries that require registration and there is no wholesale seizure of legal firearms. In Switzerland and Germany, and dozens of other countries gun registration is required and rarely does the police seize legally registered guns.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms ensures gun owner accountability and helps law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. It will enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms. Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.

Information generated by firearm registration systems can also help protect law enforcement officers responding to an incident by providing them with information about whether firearms may be present at the scene and, if so, how many and what types. This will can not only save lives of law enforcement officers but other members of the community. All too often we read of innocent people running out of a house to a police car and being shot.

What is wrong with registering guns?

It is the road to confiscation. It is a violation of my Right to privacy. In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois outlawed handguns and used the registry of those who had registered firearms to turn them in or otherwise prove that they had been disposed of. Let history be your guide.

California has passed laws to confiscate magazines for firearms:

NRA-ILA | In California, Confiscation Is No Longer A Threat. It’s The Law.

Might I add that it is unconstitutional to make something illegal after you legally did something? It's in Article1 Section 8 of the Constitution barring ex post facto laws? Congress and the courts have found novel ways to work around that as well.

Your argument implies that if one illegal act is tolerable, then there should be no problem with extending the infringements. That's the worst logic I ever heard. Take for example, registering a marriage:

The real reason we register marriages and human beings in general is not for some lawful purpose. We do that in order to tax and control human beings. A marriage contract, for example, boils down to a contract between you, your spouse and the government. Then, your child is not your child, but rather property of the state. If you want to bring up your child as an atheist and your spouse wants to bring up your child as a Christian, it is the state that will make that decision. They are not your children. They are wards of the state.

The balance of your post is bogus. No matter how many guns you register, no LEO can tell what he's up against. Guns can be stolen, borrowed, or bought on the black market. It's better that the LEO be informed of what kind of people he may be up against. I've offered some great ideas along those lines. Registering guns does not do ANY of the things you claim. Chicago is proof of that.

Finally, places like Switzerland are not full of left wing, communist loons that want America totally disarmed. The objective of the left is to register and then outlaw weapons. Personally, I have suggested ideas that would do more to slow down the number of firearm related shootings without resorting to gun control that registration could EVER accomplish. The left won't even discuss the issue because if gun control is not a part of the discussion, then there be NO discussion. This issue is not about saving lives or preventing crimes. For, if you cannot pass gun control, there are other alternatives to reduce crime, save lives, and dramatically slow down firearm related violence. The left is not interested and I'm not inclined to compromise with the people that fed you those irrational lies that registration helps reduce crime.

If you want to talk about saving lives, let's try an approach that does just that without gun control. Let's negotiate that. If it fails, we can come back to gun control AND say you tried to save lives without implement gun control. We outlawed civilian use of fully auto weapons; compromised by banning semi-automatic imports, went along with the background checks, tried the so - called Assault Weapon Ban, remained silent when the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment was passed. America has said little when BATFE has put thousands of idiotic regulations on the books.

So, it's time to admit that gun control isn't working - or you wouldn't be begging for more. This time YOU need to sit back, listen, and consider ideas that WILL make a difference WITHOUT GUN CONTROL.

This is a 'stretch' (some argue NOT), but...

Let's say Vlad invades the US...Let's say Russia invades Alaska and gets a foothold, digging in before we can drive his troops back / out. Not only do they have to worry about the US military (down in the lower 48), America, like Alaska, is filled with gun-loving/owning US citizens they will have to worry about. It makes their effort a lot easier being able to stroll into a court house / access govt records and instantly know who has weapons and what type, which allows them to start rounding people up / confiscating guns, eliminating the threat they face from the people living in the area they just took over.

I don't think that is a stretch. When I was younger, a movie came out in 1984 that was researched and written by John Milius. In the movie, the invading force had an officer order his men to confiscate all the Form 4473s from gun and sporting goods stores so they would know where the guns were. Guns were confiscated and the gun owners were put into re-education camps.

I was just beginning to study law and was a survivalist that was always interested in resistance strategies. That movie was really pivotal in opening my eyes. After studying the laws and history of firearms in America, I realized the importance of the Second Amendment. BTW, the movie is called Red Dawn (it's been remade, but the original is THE movie.)

 

[easyt65]

"Wolverine!"

 

[2aguy]

With all of the facts about gun registration...that it does nothing to solve or prevent crimes...you are still pushing it......that shows that you are immune to actual facts, the truth and reality......

And the truth is this, gun registration = gun confiscation.......everywhere it is done, you end up with confiscation.....

And no.....gun locks were also found unConstitutional under Heller .... citing crap research doesn't help your cause.

With 99% of the guns in the nation being unregistered, the databases are of limited value. Thanks to the gun lobby, it is almost impossible to determine the ownership of a gun used in a crime from registration records. Since every state decides what data is be collected and from who there is little consistency. From the records, you can't tell who owns the weapon now, when it was owned, how it was acquired, or the location of owner. In effect, all you can say for sure is that somebody probably owned the weapon at some point in time. I agree with you. Registration does nothing to solve or prevent crimes. The NRA made sure of that.

Knowing who owns a firearm is irrelevant. Crimes are solved without the LEO community having all that information. Serial numbers and registrations do not make firearms any less lethal.

Your money would be better spent on rehabilitating criminals while they are incarcerated. It would be better spent on identity children with emotional and behavioral issues while they're in school and treating them so that they don't commit violent acts as they grow up.

What is really wrong with registering guns? We register our cars, dogs, bicycles, burglar alarms, births, deaths, marriages and our kids into schools every day. Even with no military draft, we have draft registration.

The slogan or talking point “registration always leads to confiscation” has been taken up and repeated so many times that it seems impossible to trace its origin. Of course, law enforcement agencies, whether tyrannical or benign, have seized illegal items as part of their duties throughout history, long before anyone was talking about registering them.

There are many countries that require registration and there is no wholesale seizure of legal firearms. In Switzerland and Germany, and dozens of other countries gun registration is required and rarely does the police seize legally registered guns.

Requiring gun owners to register their firearms ensures gun owner accountability and helps law enforcement solve crimes and disarm criminals. It will enable law enforcement to identify, disarm, and prosecute violent criminals and people illegally in possession of firearms. Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.

Information generated by firearm registration systems can also help protect law enforcement officers responding to an incident by providing them with information about whether firearms may be present at the scene and, if so, how many and what types. This will can not only save lives of law enforcement officers but other members of the community. All too often we read of innocent people running out of a house to a police car and being shot.

What is wrong with registering guns?

It is the road to confiscation. It is a violation of my Right to privacy. In 1981, the city of Morton Grove, Illinois outlawed handguns and used the registry of those who had registered firearms to turn them in or otherwise prove that they had been disposed of. Let history be your guide.

California has passed laws to confiscate magazines for firearms:

NRA-ILA | In California, Confiscation Is No Longer A Threat. It’s The Law.

Might I add that it is unconstitutional to make something illegal after you legally did something? It's in Article1 Section 8 of the Constitution barring ex post facto laws? Congress and the courts have found novel ways to work around that as well.

Your argument implies that if one illegal act is tolerable, then there should be no problem with extending the infringements. That's the worst logic I ever heard. Take for example, registering a marriage:

The real reason we register marriages and human beings in general is not for some lawful purpose. We do that in order to tax and control human beings. A marriage contract, for example, boils down to a contract between you, your spouse and the government. Then, your child is not your child, but rather property of the state. If you want to bring up your child as an atheist and your spouse wants to bring up your child as a Christian, it is the state that will make that decision. They are not your children. They are wards of the state.

The balance of your post is bogus. No matter how many guns you register, no LEO can tell what he's up against. Guns can be stolen, borrowed, or bought on the black market. It's better that the LEO be informed of what kind of people he may be up against. I've offered some great ideas along those lines. Registering guns does not do ANY of the things you claim. Chicago is proof of that.

Finally, places like Switzerland are not full of left wing, communist loons that want America totally disarmed. The objective of the left is to register and then outlaw weapons. Personally, I have suggested ideas that would do more to slow down the number of firearm related shootings without resorting to gun control that registration could EVER accomplish. The left won't even discuss the issue because if gun control is not a part of the discussion, then there be NO discussion. This issue is not about saving lives or preventing crimes. For, if you cannot pass gun control, there are other alternatives to reduce crime, save lives, and dramatically slow down firearm related violence. The left is not interested and I'm not inclined to compromise with the people that fed you those irrational lies that registration helps reduce crime.

If you want to talk about saving lives, let's try an approach that does just that without gun control. Let's negotiate that. If it fails, we can come back to gun control AND say you tried to save lives without implement gun control. We outlawed civilian use of fully auto weapons; compromised by banning semi-automatic imports, went along with the background checks, tried the so - called Assault Weapon Ban, remained silent when the wholly unconstitutional Lautenberg Amendment was passed. America has said little when BATFE has put thousands of idiotic regulations on the books.

So, it's time to admit that gun control isn't working - or you wouldn't be begging for more. This time YOU need to sit back, listen, and consider ideas that WILL make a difference WITHOUT GUN CONTROL.

This is a 'stretch' (some argue NOT), but...

Let's say Vlad invades the US...Let's say Russia invades Alaska and gets a foothold, digging in before we can drive his troops back / out. Not only do they have to worry about the US military (down in the lower 48), America, like Alaska, is filled with gun-loving/owning US citizens they will have to worry about. It makes their effort a lot easier being able to stroll into a court house / access govt records and instantly know who has weapons and what type, which allows them to start rounding people up / confiscating guns, eliminating the threat they face from the people living in the area they just took over.

More likely.....a cyber attack on the power grid in the middle of winter, knocking out the power for a large section of the U.S.......killing millions from cold and lack of food......then, they simply move their troops over on ships and try to colonize the continent as we struggle to survive....

 

[Flopper]

If states with strict gun control laws could keep guns from flowing into the state from states that have practically no regulations, they would certainly be more effective. The only way state gun control laws would have any major effect would be if all states followed suite and that's not going to happen.

Guns are not "flowing into the states" from states which have fewer regulations.The law prohibits the interstate trafficking of firearms without filling out the proper forms and submitting to a criminal background check.

You cannot simply go to a gun shop in a neighboring state and purchase a firearm if you don't have a picture ID from that state, fill out the BATFE forms, and submit to a criminal background check.

There are already laws on the books that prevent illegal interstate trafficking of firearms. Since there are already laws, what makes you think that criminals are going to obey even more laws?

Actually, you can buy a sniper rifle on Craig's list, without ANY ID or background check.

Bullshit. Craigslist does not allow the sale of any firearms. Any listing that even resembles a firearms listing, gets immediately pulled.

OK, suit yourself. I bought my rifle from a guy a met on the rifle range. No ID, no nothing. Cash transaction. Perfectly legal in my state.

Sure. "Face to face" transactions are perfectly legal in any state. I myself bought 14 firearms from garage sales two years ago.

But the law is that as long as you don't knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted felon or an under-aged person, you're good to go.

Similarly with an automobile: If I sell an automobile to a person without a driver's license and he runs over someone, it's his problem, not mine.

Purchases of guns and automobiles aren't comparable.
Government requires automobiles be registered and drivers be trained and licensed. Neither registration, licensing, or training is required for most gun ownership. Automobiles are built to transport. Guns are made to kill. Thus in this screwed up world, it makes perfect sense to make it hard to own and operate a car but very easy to own and operate a gun.

 

[2aguy]

Guns are not "flowing into the states" from states which have fewer regulations.The law prohibits the interstate trafficking of firearms without filling out the proper forms and submitting to a criminal background check.

You cannot simply go to a gun shop in a neighboring state and purchase a firearm if you don't have a picture ID from that state, fill out the BATFE forms, and submit to a criminal background check.

There are already laws on the books that prevent illegal interstate trafficking of firearms. Since there are already laws, what makes you think that criminals are going to obey even more laws?

Actually, you can buy a sniper rifle on Craig's list, without ANY ID or background check.

Bullshit. Craigslist does not allow the sale of any firearms. Any listing that even resembles a firearms listing, gets immediately pulled.

OK, suit yourself. I bought my rifle from a guy a met on the rifle range. No ID, no nothing. Cash transaction. Perfectly legal in my state.

Sure. "Face to face" transactions are perfectly legal in any state. I myself bought 14 firearms from garage sales two years ago.

But the law is that as long as you don't knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted felon or an under-aged person, you're good to go.

Similarly with an automobile: If I sell an automobile to a person without a driver's license and he runs over someone, it's his problem, not mine.

Purchases of guns and automobiles aren't comparable.
Government requires automobiles be registered and drivers be trained and licensed. Neither registration, licensing, or training is required for most gun ownership. Automobiles are built to transport. Guns are made to kill. Thus in this screwed up world, it makes perfect sense to make it hard to own and operate a car but very easy to own and operate a gun.

No, they aren't comparable......car ownership is not a Right, and owning a car is far down on the list of confiscation for left wingers.....

Guns are made to keep the owner alive.

Cars kill more people than guns do every single year. They kill more kids than guns do too....

 

[Humorme]

Guns are not "flowing into the states" from states which have fewer regulations.The law prohibits the interstate trafficking of firearms without filling out the proper forms and submitting to a criminal background check.

You cannot simply go to a gun shop in a neighboring state and purchase a firearm if you don't have a picture ID from that state, fill out the BATFE forms, and submit to a criminal background check.

There are already laws on the books that prevent illegal interstate trafficking of firearms. Since there are already laws, what makes you think that criminals are going to obey even more laws?

Actually, you can buy a sniper rifle on Craig's list, without ANY ID or background check.

Bullshit. Craigslist does not allow the sale of any firearms. Any listing that even resembles a firearms listing, gets immediately pulled.

OK, suit yourself. I bought my rifle from a guy a met on the rifle range. No ID, no nothing. Cash transaction. Perfectly legal in my state.

Sure. "Face to face" transactions are perfectly legal in any state. I myself bought 14 firearms from garage sales two years ago.

But the law is that as long as you don't knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted felon or an under-aged person, you're good to go.

Similarly with an automobile: If I sell an automobile to a person without a driver's license and he runs over someone, it's his problem, not mine.

Purchases of guns and automobiles aren't comparable.
Government requires automobiles be registered and drivers be trained and licensed. Neither registration, licensing, or training is required for most gun ownership. Automobiles are built to transport. Guns are made to kill. Thus in this screwed up world, it makes perfect sense to make it hard to own and operate a car but very easy to own and operate a gun.

Absolute Horseshit!

To being with, there is no constitutional protection for owning a car. And why should you not "register" a car? Automobiles belong to the government. The origination papers (the equivalent of a birth certificate) are owned by the government. All the car's caretaker will ever get is a Certificate of Title. The ownership of the car resides with the government.

Now, despite the fact that cars are registered; drivers licensed and trained it don't stop the misuse and abuse that claims more lives than firearms do. And since you probably didn't know, there are 265 million automobiles in the United States. Fewer cars than guns, but cars cost more lives and cars are registered... and most of the misuse and abuse comes from people that are trained and licensed to drive.

What was your argument again?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, you can buy a sniper rifle on Craig's list, without ANY ID or background check.

Bullshit. Craigslist does not allow the sale of any firearms. Any listing that even resembles a firearms listing, gets immediately pulled.

OK, suit yourself. I bought my rifle from a guy a met on the rifle range. No ID, no nothing. Cash transaction. Perfectly legal in my state.

Sure. "Face to face" transactions are perfectly legal in any state. I myself bought 14 firearms from garage sales two years ago.

But the law is that as long as you don't knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted felon or an under-aged person, you're good to go.

Similarly with an automobile: If I sell an automobile to a person without a driver's license and he runs over someone, it's his problem, not mine.

Purchases of guns and automobiles aren't comparable.
Government requires automobiles be registered and drivers be trained and licensed. Neither registration, licensing, or training is required for most gun ownership. Automobiles are built to transport. Guns are made to kill. Thus in this screwed up world, it makes perfect sense to make it hard to own and operate a car but very easy to own and operate a gun.

Absolute Horseshit!

To being with, there is no constitutional protection for owning a car. And why should you not "register" a car? Automobiles belong to the government. The origination papers (the equivalent of a birth certificate) are owned by the government. All the car's caretaker will ever get is a Certificate of Title. The ownership of the car resides with the government.

Now, despite the fact that cars are registered; drivers licensed and trained it don't stop the misuse and abuse that claims more lives than firearms do. And since you probably didn't know, there are 265 million automobiles in the United States. Fewer cars than guns, but cars cost more lives and cars are registered... and most of the misuse and abuse comes from people that are trained and licensed to drive.

What was your argument again?

I hope that no one lights a match over here. That straw man is so old and dried out that it could burn the entire board down...