Is it legal to tax guns?

[Skel]

Is motor vehicle registration the first step in allowing the Government to seize motor vehicles?

Privilege vs right.. is there any other rights in the US where you have to register in order to have/use them?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Privilege vs right.. is there any other rights in the US where you have to register in order to have/use them?

Voting?

 

[Paratus]

Cars kill more people than guns and no one cares. In this context I don't know what can be compared to guns as nothing is scrutinized like guns are, despite being bigger killers. So seeing as guns are unique in the context, I don't think comparing them to cars tells us anything. You can call it paranoid babble, but it is exactly what the founders wanted when they inked the 2A, and for good reason in my opinion.

So driving deaths continue to decline while deaths from guns which were decreasing are now increasing.

In that same time new vehicle regulations have increased while new gun regulations continue to be fought.

 

[Victorian Gray]

They'll know whose doors to knock on when/if they confiscate them, which would be what many liberals would be happy to see. But all the people that buy stolen guns and don't care about their legality will still have their guns.

You're a good little apparatchik for the movement. Work hard li'l fella and a silver shirt will be yours.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Cars kill more people than guns and no one cares. In this context I don't know what can be compared to guns as nothing is scrutinized like guns are, despite being bigger killers. So seeing as guns are unique in the context, I don't think comparing them to cars tells us anything. You can call it paranoid babble, but it is exactly what the founders wanted when they inked the 2A, and for good reason in my opinion.

Still got nothing to do with fascism my li'l parrot.

 

[IJTSSG]

What would be the purpose of having a database of gun owners?

 

[Victorian Gray]

What would be the purpose of having a database of gun owners?

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8

 

[IJTSSG]

https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8

Already knew that. That wasn't the question.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Already knew that. That wasn't the question.

You asked: "What would be the purpose of having a database of gun owners?" or is my screen showing different words than what you typed

 

[Zorba]

Although I disagree with your premise (getting rid of a right), conservatives have been doing it wrt to voting since basically forever.

Don't forget abortion, the right's favorite of backdoor banning.

 

[Wuzup101]

We should not make laws based on paranoia. No government is going to try to seize guns. It would be a bloody war. If they decide to go that route an ownership DB is going to be the least of your concerns, and finding food and shelter will be the top.

There's a pretty rich history of governments seeking to disarm their subjects. The fact is that many gun owners will see full registration of all firearms as something that can be used against them in the future. It's not really paranoia if it's based on historical evidence.

It is more likely that they would use it to punish owners, but only if there was some reason to do so. I think we can agree that if there was some reason to believe that a firearm was used in a crime that the owner should be held responsible.

Note sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that you are going to try to hold a gun owner responsible if their gun is stolen and used in the commission of a crime? Or are you saying that a "found gun" at the scene of a crime would be probable cause to investigate the owner (specifically if they didn't report it as stolen) if no actor of the crime could be immediately identified? I don't agree with the former, but do with the latter.

I personally believe that registration is going to be an absolutely minimum step in any effective gun control. I see reluctance to this idea as a sign that a gun owners is not responsible.

Many will see it as a government overreach. I'm not sure exactly how it ties to "responsibility," please elaborate.

 

[Sunburn74]

Privilege vs right.. is there any other rights in the US where you have to register in order to have/use them?

Voting.

Court cases and proceedings (7th amendment). In fact, for the latter you have to pay a significant registration fee to even use that right talk less of the fees you generate during the case itself and attorneys if you are to use it properly.

 

[Skel]

Cars kill more people than guns and no one cares. In this context I don't know what can be compared to guns as nothing is scrutinized like guns are, despite being bigger killers. So seeing as guns are unique in the context, I don't think comparing them to cars tells us anything. You can call it paranoid babble, but it is exactly what the founders wanted when they inked the 2A, and for good reason in my opinion.

I always go out of my way to avoid cars vs guns because they're really in two different universes. Bringing them into the party only pollutes the convo, which might be the goal here, and doesn't go anywhere... I mean.. let's not kid ourselves, there's the intent of design makes them universes apart. You add privilege vs right and it's (to me) a non-starter. I've used it as an example of how something might work, but I think it's pretty dumb to hold up something else because people die of it.. might as well bring cancer into it..

Voting?

Voting.

Court cases and proceedings (7th amendment). In fact, for the latter you have to pay a significant registration fee to even use that right talk less of the fees you generate during the case itself and attorneys if you are to use it properly.

Is voting a federally constitutionally protected right? Other than the 15th which allowed everyone to vote and you couldn't be denied voting based upon skin, religion and whatnot.. but I thought the states controlled anything else.. I admit I did a quick search, as I don't really have the time to look too deep into it now, so I could be mistaken. As far as I know it's all controlled by the states, which is also the same case as gun DBs. There are a couple of DBs as I mentioned before. The federal level is blocked.. so maybe it's the same thing?

I also thought the 7th was about your rights to a jury by trial.. you don't need to register to have that.. just do something stupid. You also have the right to an overworked, possibly lazy public attorney that you get for doing something stupid.. I could be wrong again, but I'm not sure the 7th really falls into what you're talking about at a federal level.

I never thought I'd ever use my political science classes past school.. Not going to lie, I'm enjoying this convo too much. I'd also like to thank people for not devolving into the name calling and whatnot that normally happens in this talks.. well, past SlowSpyder..

 

[SlowSpyder]

I always go out of my way to avoid cars vs guns because they're really in two different universes. Bringing them into the party only pollutes the convo, which might be the goal here, and doesn't go anywhere... I mean.. let's not kid ourselves, there's the intent of design makes them universes apart. You add privilege vs right and it's (to me) a non-starter. I've used it as an example of how something might work, but I think it's pretty dumb to hold up something else because people die of it.. might as well bring cancer into it.

I generally don't use cars as a comparison either. But, I was responding to someone else that brought up cars. They are generally two very different universes, as you say. But, for what it is worth, vehicles have been used as weapons with devastating effect in the past.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There's a pretty rich history of governments seeking to disarm their subjects. The fact is that many gun owners will see full registration of all firearms as something that can be used against them in the future. It's not really paranoia if it's based on historical evidence.

The argument keeps being made that it would be impossible to disarm Americans because of the number of guns and the strong gun culture in America. You can't say both that and that it would be possible to confiscate guns.
But more importantly, it is a slippery slope argument. One does not always follow the other. slippery slope arguments are not always bad arguments, but they are weak ones. The question you have to ask is does the benefits of a registry outweigh the potential costs? I say that without a doubt. It is not even close. The odds that a national registry in the US would be used to confiscate guns is fairly remote. The only way it would happen is if we as a society decided on that course of action, and if we did then it would be a legal action supported by the majority of the populace.

Note sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that you are going to try to hold a gun owner responsible if their gun is stolen and used in the commission of a crime? Or are you saying that a "found gun" at the scene of a crime would be probable cause to investigate the owner (specifically if they didn't report it as stolen) if no actor of the crime could be immediately identified? I don't agree with the former, but do with the latter.

I think it would be used in several situations. If a gun is found in the commission of a crime the registered owner would be investigated. If it turned out the weapon was stolen, or otherwise used without permission, they might be held to a minor penalty of something like 'failure to report a lost or stolen weapon' if it can be shown that they knew the weapon was taken and did not report it. There could even be a greater (but probably still not a felony) charge of something like 'failure to properly secure a firearm', if it could be shown that they were reckless in the security of the firearm (you can't claim a the firearm was stolen if you left it sitting on your front porch).
Otherwise a registered owner would be held responsible if they knowingly allowed someone to posses the firearm that would not be allowed to otherwise. Say loaning your hunting rifle to a friend or family member that has a felony conviction and that person uses it to commit a crime, or really even is just caught with it. Although I think that as long as no crime was committed with the firearm it would be a lesser crime for the registered owner, in the case of a crime being committed with the firearm I would say the registered owner might even be considered an accomplice.

Many will see it as a government overreach. I'm not sure exactly how it ties to "responsibility," please elaborate.

Owning a firearm should be a responsibility. The care and security of a weapon is a duty. I see people wanting to avoid registering a firearm as trying to not have to be responsible for ownership of that firearm. They want to own the firearm, but be able to disavow any responsibility when it gets used improperly. Earlier in this post I spoke of the benefits of a registry outweighing the risks. The main benefit of a registry is that it ties a firearm to someone that is responsible for it's security. One of the real problems we have right now is that we don't really have that. That is why it is so easy for someone that should not have a firearm to acquire one. I can go down to walmart and buy a pistol, drive over to my friends house, and sell it to him and it is not only perfectly legal, it is untraceable. We need to register firearms to a owner and make it so that any transfer of that firearm must be registered or the person it is registered to is responsible for it.

 

[Sunburn74]

I always go out of my way to avoid cars vs guns because they're really in two different universes. Bringing them into the party only pollutes the convo, which might be the goal here, and doesn't go anywhere... I mean.. let's not kid ourselves, there's the intent of design makes them universes apart. You add privilege vs right and it's (to me) a non-starter. I've used it as an example of how something might work, but I think it's pretty dumb to hold up something else because people die of it.. might as well bring cancer into it..





Is voting a federally constitutionally protected right? Other than the 15th which allowed everyone to vote and you couldn't be denied voting based upon skin, religion and whatnot.. but I thought the states controlled anything else.. I admit I did a quick search, as I don't really have the time to look too deep into it now, so I could be mistaken. As far as I know it's all controlled by the states, which is also the same case as gun DBs. There are a couple of DBs as I mentioned before. The federal level is blocked.. so maybe it's the same thing?

I also thought the 7th was about your rights to a jury by trial.. you don't need to register to have that.. just do something stupid. You also have the right to an overworked, possibly lazy public attorney that you get for doing something stupid.. I could be wrong again, but I'm not sure the 7th really falls into what you're talking about at a federal level.

I never thought I'd ever use my political science classes past school.. Not going to lie, I'm enjoying this convo too much. I'd also like to thank people for not devolving into the name calling and whatnot that normally happens in this talks.. well, past SlowSpyder..

Voting is federally protected for certain offices. states run it with some oversight from the federal government as well as financial support.

Rights are sometimes directly stated in the constitution and at other times derived from constitutional principles and established by the SCOTUS. Both methods are equally valid and equally strong. Take Miranda rights which have to do with the right to a fair trial. The jury right I referred to is regarding litigation. In this country the right to sue for civil claims is enshrined in the constitution but you still have to register to use them.

The 7th amendment is below. Focus on the right to trial by jury bit

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

 

[Skel]

The argument keeps being made that it would be impossible to disarm Americans because of the number of guns and the strong gun culture in America. You can't say both that and that it would be possible to confiscate guns.
But more importantly, it is a slippery slope argument. One does not always follow the other. slippery slope arguments are not always bad arguments, but they are weak ones. The question you have to ask is does the benefits of a registry outweigh the potential costs? I say that without a doubt. It is not even close. The odds that a national registry in the US would be used to confiscate guns is fairly remote. The only way it would happen is if we as a society decided on that course of action, and if we did then it would be a legal action supported by the majority of the populace.



I think it would be used in several situations. If a gun is found in the commission of a crime the registered owner would be investigated. If it turned out the weapon was stolen, or otherwise used without permission, they might be held to a minor penalty of something like 'failure to report a lost or stolen weapon' if it can be shown that they knew the weapon was taken and did not report it. There could even be a greater (but probably still not a felony) charge of something like 'failure to properly secure a firearm', if it could be shown that they were reckless in the security of the firearm (you can't claim a the firearm was stolen if you left it sitting on your front porch).
Otherwise a registered owner would be held responsible if they knowingly allowed someone to posses the firearm that would not be allowed to otherwise. Say loaning your hunting rifle to a friend or family member that has a felony conviction and that person uses it to commit a crime, or really even is just caught with it. Although I think that as long as no crime was committed with the firearm it would be a lesser crime for the registered owner, in the case of a crime being committed with the firearm I would say the registered owner might even be considered an accomplice.


Owning a firearm should be a responsibility. The care and security of a weapon is a duty. I see people wanting to avoid registering a firearm as trying to not have to be responsible for ownership of that firearm. They want to own the firearm, but be able to disavow any responsibility when it gets used improperly. Earlier in this post I spoke of the benefits of a registry outweighing the risks. The main benefit of a registry is that it ties a firearm to someone that is responsible for it's security. One of the real problems we have right now is that we don't really have that. That is why it is so easy for someone that should not have a firearm to acquire one. I can go down to walmart and buy a pistol, drive over to my friends house, and sell it to him and it is not only perfectly legal, it is untraceable. We need to register firearms to a owner and make it so that any transfer of that firearm must be registered or the person it is registered to is responsible for it.

There already are laws around the proper security of firearms, and a registry wouldn't do much for that. My biggest concern would be how that info could be used. If the contents leaked out, or worse became like a pedo registry, could the firearm owners be harassed by people? Could I suddenly be told that I'm no longer allowed to have my home insurance because the company is suddenly taking a anti-gun stance? While most anti-gun people wouldn't see issues with that as it's all towards the backdoor ban, you would be punishing people for a right that's currently constitutionally protected.

Law Enforcement does have ways to track down where a gun was sold, and from there to who (I speak retail). It's just not an instant result in most places. You bring up a loop whole in a lot of states, the private selling. I'm really torn on this subject as I do see it as a way for people that shouldn't have guns to get them, though criminal is going to criminal.. you'll never stop them getting guns, but that's not what I'm speaking of. I'm speaking of the guy that has a domestic violence charge on him and has lost the right to have one. On the flip of that, if a person who is a lawful owner wants to sell his property to another lawful owner and get a better rate than a shop, that should be an option. Why create a marketplace that only profits the shops and screws the lawful owners? I'm hoping this won't be a backdoor ban type thing, where as long as we make it hard on people to get guns it's worth it kind of convo..

Also, why not kick it to the states where it currently resides? Why a national DB?

Voting is federally protected for certain offices. states run it with some oversight from the federal government as well as financial support.

Rights are sometimes directly stated in the constitution and at other times derived from constitutional principles and established by the SCOTUS. Both methods are equally valid and equally strong. Take Miranda rights which have to do with the right to a fair trial. The jury right I referred to is regarding litigation. In this country the right to sue for civil claims is enshrined in the constitution but you still have to register to use them.

The 7th amendment is below. Focus on the right to trial by jury bit

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

I'll concede the point... though I've been under the impression that voting registration is controlled and done by the states, not a federal level.

I'm not sure I agree with the 7th one though. I don't have to register with the Government in order to use the court system. I might have to with a local court, but even then I'm only required to log what I'm doing. I don't have to join some list in order to sue someone.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There already are laws around the proper security of firearms, and a registry wouldn't do much for that.

Actually, it is the only way those laws can work. If I can just say 'I don't know, I guess I lost it' and the police have to just accept that those laws are pretty useless. Do you know of any cases of those laws being used? I don't.

My biggest concern would be how that info could be used. If the contents leaked out, or worse became like a pedo registry, could the firearm owners be harassed by people?

Probably, but they would be the ones armed. Do people that open carry get harassed?

Could I suddenly be told that I'm no longer allowed to have my home insurance because the company is suddenly taking a anti-gun stance?

That can happen now. The company could just put it in their contract and if it is found you own a firearm deny any claim. That sort of thing happens all the time already.

While most anti-gun people wouldn't see issues with that as it's all towards the backdoor ban, you would be punishing people for a right that's currently constitutionally protected.

That would be a private company doing so and that is allowed. Many companies ban their employees from carrying a firearm for example.

On the flip of that, if a person who is a lawful owner wants to sell his property to another lawful owner and get a better rate than a shop, that should be an option. Why create a marketplace that only profits the shops and screws the lawful owners?

A register would not stop this. It would just require you to fill out the paperwork to transfer ownership. That paperwork would then cause the background check to be done, and if it comes back okay then all is well, if not it would require the seller to not transfer the firearm. It might mean that private sells of firearms would have to be delayed to do the check, but done right that could probably be done nearly instantly with an online form.

Also, why not kick it to the states where it currently resides? Why a national DB?

Because 50 states each having their own systems would not work very well, would take years to get together, and some would not bother at all. Can you see Texas doing this if not required to?
Then it just becomes drive to the next state to by your unregistered gun and nothing really will have been solved.

 

[IJTSSG]

I think we should fingerprint and collect DNA from all newborns and update those throughout everyone's lifetime. You know, just in case you commit a crime.

 

[Wuzup101]

The argument keeps being made that it would be impossible to disarm Americans because of the number of guns and the strong gun culture in America. You can't say both that and that it would be possible to confiscate guns.
But more importantly, it is a slippery slope argument. One does not always follow the other. slippery slope arguments are not always bad arguments, but they are weak ones. The question you have to ask is does the benefits of a registry outweigh the potential costs? I say that without a doubt. It is not even close. The odds that a national registry in the US would be used to confiscate guns is fairly remote. The only way it would happen is if we as a society decided on that course of action, and if we did then it would be a legal action supported by the majority of the populace.

I think it's VERY possible that the government could disarm Americans if we start doing things like requiring a registration on every gun out there. First we register every gun out there. Next, a constructive ban on all semi-automatic "Assault Rifles," after a mass shooting... because common sense right? Following that, a constructive ban on all semi-automatic pistols when something like Virgina Tech goes down again (guns used were 2 pistols). Next, we realize that double action revolvers fire a bullet with each trigger pull too, ban those too. Eventually the lawful gun owners have flint lock muskets and the criminals still have regular guns. Violent crime is still present, there are more knife deaths than gun deaths.

Note that a constructive ban, gun buy back, etc... isn't the same thing as the government driving door to door and collecting guns. That is flat out unlikely. With that being said, both can ultimately accomplish the same thing.

I think it would be used in several situations. If a gun is found in the commission of a crime the registered owner would be investigated. If it turned out the weapon was stolen, or otherwise used without permission, they might be held to a minor penalty of something like 'failure to report a lost or stolen weapon' if it can be shown that they knew the weapon was taken and did not report it. There could even be a greater (but probably still not a felony) charge of something like 'failure to properly secure a firearm', if it could be shown that they were reckless in the security of the firearm (you can't claim a the firearm was stolen if you left it sitting on your front porch).

If I leave my shoes on my front porch and they are taken, I can claim that they were stolen. I can certainly claim the same thing about any piece of property. Obviously, I think it would be stupid to leave a gun on my front porch. That being said, if someone steals it and uses it in the commission of a crime, that's their crime.

Otherwise a registered owner would be held responsible if they knowingly allowed someone to posses the firearm that would not be allowed to otherwise. Say loaning your hunting rifle to a friend or family member that has a felony conviction and that person uses it to commit a crime, or really even is just caught with it. Although I think that as long as no crime was committed with the firearm it would be a lesser crime for the registered owner, in the case of a crime being committed with the firearm I would say the registered owner might even be considered an accomplice.

Certainly I agree that if an owner knowingly loaned a weapon to someone that they explicitly knew was banned from owning a firearm, it should be treated just like a straw purchase.

Owning a firearm should be a responsibility. The care and security of a weapon is a duty. I see people wanting to avoid registering a firearm as trying to not have to be responsible for ownership of that firearm. They want to own the firearm, but be able to disavow any responsibility when it gets used improperly. Earlier in this post I spoke of the benefits of a registry outweighing the risks. The main benefit of a registry is that it ties a firearm to someone that is responsible for it's security. One of the real problems we have right now is that we don't really have that. That is why it is so easy for someone that should not have a firearm to acquire one. I can go down to walmart and buy a pistol, drive over to my friends house, and sell it to him and it is not only perfectly legal, it is untraceable. We need to register firearms to a owner and make it so that any transfer of that firearm must be registered or the person it is registered to is responsible for it.

Gun owners, as a whole, tend to be a pretty responsible group. Many of us don't want to "register" our weapons because we don't know what the government is going to do with that information in the future (immediate or otherwise). That doesn't mean that we want our guns to be stolen, sold to others who can't legally possess them, or be used in the commission of a crime. Many of us go to GREAT lengths to prevent this with MUCH greater home security than is typical. You can certainly close the "gun show loophole" without an issue. Most of us don't care that we have to undergo a background check every time. I grew up in a state that closed the private sales loophole in regards to handguns but still allowed it for rifles. I've bought / sold both types of weapons to private persons through internet forums easily, we just met at a local FFL dealer to do the transfer w/ background check. It doesn't really hinder anything.

Shit even with a "registry" I can just be like... oh shit sorry officer that gun was in my kitchen drawer... it must have been stolen and I didn't notice. Most people, regardless of what item we are talking about, don't want to be responsible for other people's actions.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think it's VERY possible that the government could disarm Americans if we start doing things like requiring a registration on every gun out there. First we register every gun out there. Next, a constructive ban on all semi-automatic "Assault Rifles," after a mass shooting... because common sense right? Following that, a constructive ban on all semi-automatic pistols when something like Virgina Tech goes down again (guns used were 2 pistols). Next, we realize that double action revolvers fire a bullet with each trigger pull too, ban those too. Eventually the lawful gun owners have flint lock muskets and the criminals still have regular guns. Violent crime is still present, there are more knife deaths than gun deaths.

To be honest, that is the goal. To wean our society off of guns altogether. If we could reach the point where there are more knife deaths then gun deaths would be a major victory for our society. There is a major difference between killing someone with a knife than a gun. It takes a completely different type of attitude to kill someone with a knife. It is much more rare. It is, for example, rare indeed that an innocent bystander gets accidentally killed by a knife fight. I don't know if I've ever heard of a mass stabbing.

If I leave my shoes on my front porch and they are taken, I can claim that they were stolen. I can certainly claim the same thing about any piece of property. Obviously, I think it would be stupid to leave a gun on my front porch. That being said, if someone steals it and uses it in the commission of a crime, that's their crime.

This is what I mean by gun owners are irresponsible.
Owning a firearm comes with the responsibility to secure that firearm. Failure to do so should be a crime. The idea that you could just leave your pistol sitting on the front porch and then claim you had no part in what happens with it is absurd. It is the height of irresponsibility. I feel the same way about having one in a house. Leave it sitting on the counter and someone gets hold of it and uses it, and you should be to blame for failure to properly secure it.

Gun owners, as a whole, tend to be a pretty responsible group.

That is not my experience. Even your own arguments show that is not true. You just define responsibility away so that you are never actually responsible for anything. Real responsibility does not make excuses.

Shit even with a "registry" I can just be like... oh shit sorry officer that gun was in my kitchen drawer... it must have been stolen and I didn't notice. Most people, regardless of what item we are talking about, don't want to be responsible for other people's actions.

And I believe that the idea that you could store your firearm in a kitchen drawer to be irresponsible to the point of criminality.

 

[Bird222]

To be honest, that is the goal. To wean our society off of guns altogether. If we could reach the point where there are more knife deaths then gun deaths would be a major victory for our society. There is a major difference between killing someone with a knife than a gun. It takes a completely different type of attitude to kill someone with a knife. It is much more rare. It is, for example, rare indeed that an innocent bystander gets accidentally killed by a knife fight. I don't know if I've ever heard of a mass stabbing.



This is what I mean by gun owners are irresponsible.
Owning a firearm comes with the responsibility to secure that firearm. Failure to do so should be a crime. The idea that you could just leave your pistol sitting on the front porch and then claim you had no part in what happens with it is absurd. It is the height of irresponsibility. I feel the same way about having one in a house. Leave it sitting on the counter and someone gets hold of it and uses it, and you should be to blame for failure to properly secure it.


That is not my experience. Even your own arguments show that is not true. You just define responsibility away so that you are never actually responsible for anything. Real responsibility does not make excuses.


And I believe that the idea that you could store your firearm in a kitchen drawer to be irresponsible to the point of criminality.

Careful now that woman walking in a dark alley at 2:00 am might think you are saying she is responsible for her rape.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Careful now that woman walking in a dark alley at 2:00 am might think you are saying she is responsible for her rape.

You don't even see how stupid that argument is do you?
I don't think I have the time to educate you on such simple things like body autonomy.
Nice going though comparing the reckless gun owner to a victim of rape.

 

[Skel]

Actually, it is the only way those laws can work. If I can just say 'I don't know, I guess I lost it' and the police have to just accept that those laws are pretty useless. Do you know of any cases of those laws being used? I don't..

I was mostly speaking towards your point about holding a gun owner responsible if they don't secure their guns correctly. If a kid gets your gun and does anything with it, you're getting arrested.. if you fire your gun outside of zoned areas not in fear of your life you get arrested.. hell if you wave your gun around you get arrested.. As far as the stolen thing.. it's like any other stolen item. If you don't report it stolen, the police spend a lot more time looking at you.. To answer your question.. I don't know of any personally, but maybe?

Probably, but they would be the ones armed. Do people that open carry get harassed?.

I've heard tales of late. Most people don't open carry anymore due to the idiots that are trying to start stupidity. You know that very special type of idiot you hear about going into Walmart with a AR on his back to "test his 2A rights".. those idiots shouldn't have firearms.. and normally after they're charged they don't. To be clear though. I have heard of some people getting flack for even having an empty holster on them. One I know stopped off at a circle K on his way to some competition and while the guns were locked in the car, some people inside thought he was going to rob the place. When he explained he wouldn't, they started asking him why he needed guns, and why he supported killing kids.. This is a guy I personally know, so yeah.. people are. Joys of our polarized political stupidity..

That can happen now. The company could just put it in their contract and if it is found you own a firearm deny any claim. That sort of thing happens all the time already..

They can only deny a claim if the gun was a factor... and even then. I've not seen, nor heard of any insurance company doing this. I'm not even sure it would stand unless clearly stated when buying the policy. Either way, this was an example of what could happen if a registry DB was released.

That would be a private company doing so and that is allowed. Many companies ban their employees from carrying a firearm for example..

What company has the right (outside of armed forces) to dictate what you do outside of work??? They can only stop you from carrying a gun in their work areas, or while you're doing work for them. Outside of that, it's a clear violation of 2A.

A register would not stop this. It would just require you to fill out the paperwork to transfer ownership. That paperwork would then cause the background check to be done, and if it comes back okay then all is well, if not it would require the seller to not transfer the firearm. It might mean that private sells of firearms would have to be delayed to do the check, but done right that could probably be done nearly instantly with an online form..

Right now as it stands, only FFLs (dealers) have the ability to check someone out. If they created a system for private sellers to be able to, I would wholeheartedly support checks on private sales. I do think it's a crap loophole, but as I said, I'm torn on it until they allow people to do a simple check.

Because 50 states each having their own systems would not work very well, would take years to get together, and some would not bother at all. Can you see Texas doing this if not required to?
Then it just becomes drive to the next state to by your unregistered gun and nothing really will have been solved.

I concede that's a problem. The only point I could make here is, if your state requires you to register your gun, where you bought it means little. You'd be breaking the law in your state and risking a lot just to avoid registering it... to the point where if you need to break the law to own a gun, you shouldn't have it, therefore going back to criminal is going to criminal. Also you'd need to close out "Ghost Guns".

To be honest, that is the goal. To wean our society off of guns altogether. If we could reach the point where there are more knife deaths then gun deaths would be a major victory for our society. There is a major difference between killing someone with a knife than a gun. It takes a completely different type of attitude to kill someone with a knife. It is much more rare. It is, for example, rare indeed that an innocent bystander gets accidentally killed by a knife fight. I don't know if I've ever heard of a mass stabbing.



This is what I mean by gun owners are irresponsible.
Owning a firearm comes with the responsibility to secure that firearm. Failure to do so should be a crime. The idea that you could just leave your pistol sitting on the front porch and then claim you had no part in what happens with it is absurd. It is the height of irresponsibility. I feel the same way about having one in a house. Leave it sitting on the counter and someone gets hold of it and uses it, and you should be to blame for failure to properly secure it.


That is not my experience. Even your own arguments show that is not true. You just define responsibility away so that you are never actually responsible for anything. Real responsibility does not make excuses.


And I believe that the idea that you could store your firearm in a kitchen drawer to be irresponsible to the point of criminality.

And that right there is why gun owners get so defensive about registration. I get that falls in line with your goal, and respect you for having a view, even if I don't agree with it. It's just that most anti-gun people (who are always the ones pushing registration.. shouldn't say always, but I've not personally heard/seen a gun owner want it) seem to follow this path, first it's "we're not trying to take your guns", then it's "we're trying to just make common sense (which means different things to different people) laws removing some guns", then it's "we're this far, we no longer need guns". I appreciate your honesty on where you want to end up, but you can't just dismiss some gun owners paranoia over it. Why would any of them want to make the anti-gun's agenda of weaning our society off of guns all together any easier? It goes against their goal of having them.

 

[Bird222]

You don't even see how stupid that argument is do you?
I don't think I have the time to educate you on such simple things like body autonomy.
Nice going though comparing the reckless gun owner to a victim of rape.

Whatever dude. Nowhere in my highlighted quote did you mention the criminal that stole the gun and committed a crime with it. You can't have it both ways. Either the woman bears some responsibility for engaging in risky behavior (just like the gun owner for not locking up his guns) or she doesn't.