Will having to register your guns stand up in court?

[Doppel]

Court doesn't so much matter nowadays in the US for things like this. If the administration wants it, it will get it.

 

[MtnMan]

Its not a right, its a privilege and it can be revoked, and is, when necessary.

Please read the US Consititution (2nd Amendment specifically) and you won't appear to be so frigging stupid. Or just continue with stupid, you wear it like a pair of cheap shoes, just an annoying squeak... squeak....squeak.

 

[ivwshane]

If you are a citizen and not a felon you have the right to vote. Seems pretty clear to me. Where do gun owners infringe on the rights of others to vote?

You aren't up on current events are you?

I didn't say gun owners infringe in anyone's rights. I was drawing parallels of the voter suppression laws enacted by republicans versus the left doing the same thing with guns.

 

[piasabird]

Just who will keep this gargantuan database of every weapon sold? How do you track private gun sales? What are the checks and balances? Didnt Canada try this once?

The police state of Illinois is trying to pass an assault weapons ban with registration. That will probably never fly.

 

[xj0hnx]

Well regulated may just apply to registration. 2a says you have the right to bear arms, it also implies that's a regulated right.

No, it doesn't "imply" anything, it's states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It then goes on to further state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[xj0hnx]

Didnt Canada try this once?

Tried and abandoned from what I understand.

 

[Incorruptible]

You aren't up on current events are you?

I didn't say gun owners infringe in anyone's rights. I was drawing parallels of the voter suppression laws enacted by republicans versus the left doing the same thing with guns.

Asking voters for ID is not suppression

 

[rommelrommel]

Just as a cautionary tale of the logistics of this..

In Canada we already had a registry of handguns and certain rifles/shotguns.

We spent 2 billion dollars to register about 7 million guns. The registry was rife with errors, certificates issued for nail guns, blow dryers, single models of a gun might have 15 different classifications which were not linked, thousands of previously reported stolen guns were registered and not detected until years later, hundreds of thousands of guns registered without serial numbers, hundreds of thousands of incidents of multiple guns registered with the same make/model/serial number, and about a 35%-40% compliance rate.

Oh, and then we abolished it and destroyed the data a few months ago.

In Canada... even if by some act of god Americans didn't actively resist this, that's what you have to look forward to.

 

[desy]

Yes add to the fact handguns have been a registrated requirement since the 30's and still over 70% of Firearm homicide is w handguns of which over 90% have never been registered

 

[exdeath]

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/nra...ter-illinois-win/article/2517558#.UOb6RlVlAuq

If Illinois can't do it....

 

[boochi]

If the democrats want to force registration of firearms, I predict millions of dead democrats.

 

[HumblePie]

I just don't understand the idiocy of people when it comes to gun control. Even listening to NPR this morning on the ride in, they keep spouting off that gun advocates are just nuts because they won't submit to "reasonable" gun control. They sling around that word "reasonable" like a mantra and it means something.

First off, restricting guns or infringing upon law abiding citizens gun rights does NOT solve the problem with gun crime. Law abiding citizens do not commit gun crimes. Only criminals do. Criminals don't give a rat's ass about "reasonable" gun control.

And there is no such thing as "reasonable" because the only "reasonable" gun control is zero infringement on gun rights for law abiding citizens.

 

[exdeath]

Thing is we already have reasonable middle ground common sense gun control since 1934.

The left always want to take our current position at 50% in the middle, let it become the status quo, then later down the road pretend we are at 0% when its really already 50% and ask you to meet them in the middle. That puts us as 75% not 50% because we aren't starting at 0....

 

[ivwshane]

Thing is we already have reasonable middle ground common sense gun control since 1934.

The left always want to take our current position at 50% in the middle, let it become the status quo, then later down the road pretend we are at 0% when its really already 50% and ask you to meet them in the middle. That puts us as 75% not 50% because we aren't starting at 0....

I have no idea what you are talking about, what are some examples of this?

 

[HumblePie]

I have no idea what you are talking about, what are some examples of this?

Ban on fire select weapons and full auto weapons. First major piece of gun control introduced.

 

[ivwshane]

Ban on fire select weapons and full auto weapons. First major piece of gun control introduced.

Ok so that was the first piece of legislation, I guess that means we are at the middle? So where is the 2nd piece of legislation that puts us at zero.


I don't know it just seems like an odd comment.

 

[exdeath]

I have no idea what you are talking about, what are some examples of this?

I started out my post with an example.

 

[exdeath]

Ok so that was the first piece of legislation, I guess that means we are at the middle? So where is the 2nd piece of legislation that puts us at zero.


I don't know it just seems like an odd comment.

Full auto, select fire, assault weapons, machine guns, destructive devices, sawed off shotguns, grenades, explosives, silencers, etc were banned in 1934, but we got to keep single shot semi automatic rifles and handguns. That is the middle, 50% since 1934, and this is where we still are today.

The left would have you believe we are at 0% with no gun control at all though and want you to come to the middle with common sense gun laws... But it's not the middle because we are already in the middle and have been for 7 decades.

They want to say your hunting rifles are safe with a new semi automatic ban, but in 1934 were fed the same bullshit about how our semi automatic weapons would always be safe.... There is no compromise, its just a gradual slide down the slippery slope as time passes and people forget we already compromised. If we keep compromising again and again and again using yesterday's already established middle ground as the 0% starting point each time to compromise again to 50% eventually the opposition will have it 100% in their favor .

50% each time is 50% then 75% then 87.5% then 93.75%...

 

[ivwshane]

I started out my post with an example.

So you are only allowed to negotiate once? Are you saying the left always makes compromises and then pushes for more compromises?

Yeah that's definitely a left/liberal only tactic.

 

[HumblePie]

No, many gun grabbers keep pushing for additional gun control laws and make arguments that seem as if there are zero laws out there. Then many people, like yourself that had to ask what laws we have, seem to believe it. Then they appeal to emotion by stating they are only pushing for "reasonable" or "sensible" laws without actually making a point to define what is reasonable or sensible about their proposed additional laws are.

 

[Todd33]

Isn't that when it comes to assembling on public land?

If I want to assemble a bunch of people on private property, do I have to have a permit?

Do you have to have a permit to assemble a couple of hundred people at a wedding?

What about at a church, walmart, sears, best buy,,,, do companies have to have a permit for people to assemble there?

Lets say a local church goes down to the river for a public baptizing, does the church have to have a permit?

Yes, yes, yes...

You cannot assemble people in large numbers in a residential area, some guy was just busted fro running a church in his backyard. He is not zoned for it.

 

[ivwshane]

No, many gun grabbers keep pushing for additional gun control laws and make arguments that seem as if there are zero laws out there. Then many people, like yourself that had to ask what laws we have, seem to believe it. Then they appeal to emotion by stating they are only pushing for "reasonable" or "sensible" laws without actually making a point to define what is reasonable or sensible about their proposed additional laws are.

What is reasonable?

 

[exdeath]

So you are only allowed to negotiate once? Are you saying the left always makes compromises and then pushes for more compromises?

Yeah that's definitely a left/liberal only tactic.

It is when it comes to guns. Each time there is a new gun debate the starting point for the side on defense is always the previous point of compromise.

In other words there is no middle ground or compromise, just a constant onslaught of total erosion .

 

[ivwshane]

It is when it comes to guns. Each time there is a new gun debate the starting point for the side on defense is always the previous point of compromise.

In other words there is no middle ground or compromise, just a constant onslaught of total erosion .

Or! Or! You could come up with your own reasonable solution and not use the previous solution as a starting point. That's a pretty novel idea isnt it?

 

[exdeath]

Or! Or! You could come up with your own reasonable solution and not use the previous solution as a starting point. That's a pretty novel idea isnt it?

You mean overturn existing gun restrictions before we make more? I'm all in, do I have your support? I'd love to have a legal machine gun for $1500 instead of $15,000.

I don't chose a starting point arbitrarily, the starting point is always the existing laws. Gun control advocates try to add more laws while pro gun advocates have to struggle to keep the status quo (even when those previous and existing laws suck too). Very rarely is there progress in the other direction of undoing and striking down existing laws. Thankfully the last retarded ban had an automatic sunset, otherwise AR15s would still be banned and this current gun debate would be about banning semi auto pistols in addition to how 10 round magazines are still too much.